Doug Ewell via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Jan 30 15:24:06 CST 2019
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> 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".
I looked at ITU T.416, which I believe is equivalent to ISO 8613-6 but
has the advantage of not costing me USD 179, and it looks very similar
to ISO 6429 (ECMA-48, formerly ANSI X3.64) with regard to the things we
are talking about: setting text display properties such as bold and
italics by means of escape sequences.
Can you explain how ISO 8613-6 differs from ISO 6429 for what we are
doing, and if it does not, why we should not simply refer to the more
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
More information about the Unicode