Encoding italic

[Kent Karlsson via Unicode]

Yes, great. But as I've said, we've ALREADY got a
default-ignorable-in-display (if implemented right)
way of doing such things.

And not only do we already have one, but it is also
standardised in multiple standards from different
standards institutions. See for instance "ISO/IEC 8613-6,
Information technology --- Open Document Architecture (ODA)
and Interchange Format: Character content architecture".
(In a little experiment I found that it seems that
Cygwin is one of the better implementations of this;
B.t.w. I have no relation to Cygwin other than using it.)

To boot, it's been around for decades and is still
alive and well. I see absolutely no need for a "bold"
new concept here; the one below is not better in any
significant way.

/Kent Karlsson


Den 2019-01-29 23:35, skrev "Andrew West via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org>:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 01:55, James Kass via Unicode
> <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>> 
>> This ������bold�������� new concept was not mine.  When I tested it
>> here, I was using the tag encoding recommended by the developer.
> 
> Congratulations James, you've successfully interchanged tag-styled
> plain text over the internet with no adverse side effects. I copied
> your email into BabelPad and your "bold" is shown bold (see attached
> screenshot).
> 
> Andrew