A last missing link for interoperable representation

[Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode]

On 1/10/19 6:43 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> The first step would be to persuade the "powers that be" that italics 
> are needed.  That seems presently unlikely.  There's an entrenched 
> mindset which seems to derive from the fact that pre-existing 
> character sets were based on mechanical typewriting technology and 
> were further limited by the maximum number of glyphs in primitive 
> computer fonts.
>
> The second step would be to persuade Unicode to encode a new character 
> rather than simply using an existing variation selector character to 
> do the job.

A perhaps more affirmative step, not necessarily first but maybe, would 
be to write up a proposal and submit it through channels so the "powers 
that be" can respond officially.

~mark