Encoding italic

[Kent Karlsson via Unicode]

I did say "multiple" and "for instance". But since you ask:

ITU T.416/ISO/IEC 8613-6 defines general RGB & CMY(K) colour control
sequences, which are deferred in ECMA-48/ISO 6429. (The RGB one
is implemented in Cygwin (sorry for mentioning a product name).)
(The "named" ones, though very popular in terminal emulators, are
all much too stark, I think, and the exact colour for them are
implementation defined.)

ECMA-48/ISO 6429 defines control sequences for CJK emphasising, which
traditionally does not use bold or italic. Compare those specified for CSS
(https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-decor-3/#propdef-text-decoration-style and
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-decor-3/#propdef-text-emphasis-style).
These are not at all mentioned in ITU T.416/ISO/IEC 8613-6, but should
be of interest for the generalised subject of this thread.

There are some other differences as well, but those are the major ones
with regard to text styling. (I don't know those standards to a tee.
I've just looked at the "m" control sequences for text styling. And yes,
I looked at the free copies...)

/Kent Karlsson

PS
If people insist on that EACH character in "plain text" italic/bold/etc
"controls" be default ignorable: one could just take the control sequences
as specified, but map the printable characters part to the corresponding
tag characters... Not that I think that that is really necessary.


Den 2019-01-30 22:24, skrev "Doug Ewell via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org>:

> 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
> familiar 6429?
>  
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>