<html><head></head><body><span class="viv-signature"></span>On Wednesday,
04 January 2023, 19:53:40 (-05:00), Kent Karlsson via Unicode
wrote:<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF
2px solid; padding-left: 1ex"><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Calibri,
sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:15.5467px;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-top:0cm;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">The advantage this approach has is that by using a
separate class of characters, no substring of printable characters
(including SP, HT), no substring of printable characters can be confused
with controls for text styling.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"
style="font-family:Calibri,
sans-serif;font-size:11pt;line-height:15.5467px;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-top:0cm;"><span
lang="EN-GB" class=""></span></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't
see this as a major concern. IMO, what people want from Unicode styling is
one or both of these things:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Extremely compact
styling, made possible by assigning dedicated characters for each
style</div><div>2. Default-ignorable styling markup that neatly disappears
if it cannot be interpreted, made possible by the existing set of
default-ignorable Unicode characters.</div><div><br></div><div>ECMA-48 does
the first not very well, and the the second not at
all.</div><div><br></div><span
class="viv-signature-below"></span></body></html>