A last missing link for interoperable representation

[Marcel Schneider via Unicode]

On 08/01/2019 06:32, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/7/2019 7:46 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>> Making recommendations for the post processing of strings containing the combining low line strikes me as being outside the scope of Unicode, though.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Those kinds of things are effectively "mark down" languages, a name chosen to define them as lighter weight alternatives to formal, especially SGML derived mark-up languages.
>
> Neither mark-up nor mark down languages are in scope.
>
My hinting about post processing was only a door open to those tagging my suggestion as a dirty hack. I was so anxious about angry feedback that I inverted the order of the two possible usages despite my preference for keeping the combining underline while using proper fonts, fully agreeing with James Kass. I was pointing that unlike rich text, enhanced capabilities of plain text do not hold the user captive. With rich text we need to stay in rich text, whereas the goal of this thread is to point ways of ensuring interoperability.

The pitch is that if some languages are still considered “needing” rich text where others are correctly represented in plain text (stress, abbreviations), the Standard needs to be updated in a way that it fully supports actually all languages.

Having said that, still unsupported minority languages are top priority.

Best regards,

Marcel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20190108/04563d0d/attachment.html>