Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Jan 23 20:08:31 CST 2019
On 1/19/19 3:34 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> On 2019-01-19 6:19 PM, wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com wrote:
> > It seems to me that it would be useful to have some codes that are
> > ordinary characters in some contexts yet are control codes in
> others, ...
> Italics aren't a novel concept. The approach for encoding new
> characters is that conventions for them exist and that people *are*
> exchanging them, people have exchanged them in the past, or that
> people demonstrably *need* to exchange them.
> Excluding emoji, any suggestion or proposal whose premise is "It seems
> to me that it would be useful if characters supporting <this or
> that>..." is doomed to be deemed out of scope for the standard.
This was the quote I had been looking for, sorry James and Asmus. It
isn't the first time it's been pointed out here.
More information about the Unicode