RE: “plain text styling”…

[Doug Ewell]

Kent Karlsson replied to Sławomir Osipiuk:

>> I still think the distinction you're drawing – that codes below
>> U+0020 are not "plain text" – is arbitrary.
>
> [...]
>
> Using this, there is also no need for some printable characters to by
> necessity be represented as a character reference (in HTML, for
> instance, a real ”<” almost always must be represented as a character
> reference, like <).

I do feel this distinction is important. Text that most of us would consider “plain text”—which could include just about any printable character, but no C0 control characters other than CR, LF, HT, and maybe a couple of others—needs no escaping or other modification to conform to the ECMA-48 model.

This is not entirely unlike the observation that plain ASCII text is also valid UTF-8.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org