Inverted asterism

[James Kass]

On 2023-03-30 8:31 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> I think it’s reasonable to allow that the inverted asterism might have some claim to being a legitimate plain-text character ...
Agreed.  But as Marius Spix pointed out, the glyph in question can 
already be represented in plain-text as "*⁎*".  We've seen arguments in 
the past against encoding which assert that since the text already 
cannot be reproduced without rich-text there's no need for direct encoding.

I was interested in the side-by-side comparison of the repro with the 
source.  Wondering how closely the authors of the web page want to match 
the source.  Some stylistic differences are captured in the repro, 
others are not.  For example :  The font size change between the top and 
the bottom of the page are matched, but the font style (serif) is not 
matched.  The italics in the source are matched, but the paragraph 
indentations aren't.  &c.