A last missing link for interoperable representation

[James Kass via Unicode]

Mark E. Shoulson wrote,

 > This discussion has been very interesting, really.  I've heard what I
 > thought were very good points and relevant arguments from both/all
 > sides, and I confess to not being sure which I actually prefer.

It's subjective, really.  It depends on how one views plain-text and 
one's expectations for its future.  Should plain-text be progressive, 
regressive, or stagnant?  Because those are really the only choices.  
And opinions differ.

Most of us involved with Unicode probably expect plain-text to be around 
for quite a while.  The figure bandied about in the past on this list is 
"a thousand years".  Only a society of mindless drones would cling to 
the past for a millennium.  So, many of us probably figure that 
strictures laid down now will be overridden as a matter of course, over 
time.

Unicode will probably be around for awhile, but the barrier between 
plain- and rich-text has already morphed significantly in the relatively 
short period of time it's been around.

I became attracted to Unicode about twenty years ago.  Because Unicode 
opened up entire /realms/ of new vistas relating to what could be done 
with computer plain text.  I hope this trend continues.