Italics get used to express important semantic meaning, so unicode should support them

[Kent Karlsson]

> 16 dec. 2020 kl. 04:18 skrev Zach Lym <indolering at gmail.com>:

> But that begs the question: if the authors of a rich text standard
> can't agree on what counts as semantic, how would Unicode decide?

Eeh, 

file.html would be an HTML file, intending to interpret HTML tags as markup
(unless in a view tags mode of display) for programs/apps that can interpret HTML markup,
and regarding RTF or other non-HTML markup markup as plain text.

file.rtf would be an RTF file, intending to interpret RTF markup (unless in a view markup
mode of display) for programs/apps that can interpret RTF markup, and regarding 
HTML or other non-RTF markup markup as plain text.

and so on.

There are several other ways of indicating the file ”type”, but filename suffix is the
most obvious method that is used.

So what was the problem did you say?

> What about <mark>, <strikethrough>, or as I previously suggested
> <blink>?  <blink> was added to HTML because it was the only
> styling that could be displayed in plaintext console environments.

I’m not sure that history is correct. Anyhow, for terminals (emulators nowadays)
underline, bold, italic, and coloring (also in combination) is commonly available.
(Even when terminals were monochrome, underline and bold could still be done,
even if done in a non-standard way.)

Blink is often suppressed in modern terminal emulators (but then can be enabled by
a preference setting).

/Kent Karlsson

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20201217/50a996ea/attachment.htm>