Mark E. Shoulson replied to Kent Karlsson: >> It is, however, a while ago since the last update to ECMA-48, and >> that shows. I’ve compiled a proposed update for the text styling part >> of ECMA-48: >> https://github.com/kent-karlsson/control/blob/main/ecma-48-style-modernisation-2022.pdf > > Actually not necessarily a bad idea, at least at first browsing, but > it's kind of out of scope for Unicode, isn't it? It sounds like an > update to ECMA-48 (which isn't part of Unicode), and they're the > people you'd have to convince.
Actually, Kent's document does include updates and clarifications that are specific to Unicode. So there is certainly something for readers of this list. I agree with Kent's overall assessment that ECMA-48 is the way to go for styling attributes in an environment that strives to remain "plain text," and is far superior, for many reasons, to any proposal to create a completely new mechanism to achieve the same goal. I have only had time to skim this latest 50-page update, but I would make the same suggestions that I have made before, plus a few others: 1. Clarifications to existing specifications and usage are fine. 2. Completely new inventions, even if they are in the spirit of ECMA-48, should be proposed in separate sections and handled with care. The argument that ECMA-48 is a time-tested standard, widely implemented, loses force in proportion to the amount of emphasis placed on unilaterally creating new stuff. 3. Deprecated items, items newly noted as "one should try to avoid," and other new restrictions on existing sequences or existing implementations should be proposed in separate sections, and handled with EXTREME care. Restricting platforms, for example, from implementing "bold" with zero color change, or from implementing "italic" or "oblique" at an angle outside the range 8°–12°, or attempting to forbid certain characters beyond what Unicode recommends, introduces a strong risk that the proposed new standard may be ignored. Think of the concessions that had to be made for Unicode itself to be adopted. 4. Tables that compare existing and proposed ECMA-48 mechanisms, and call attention to the changes, need to be included. 5. A table of contents and index, and perhaps a glossary, are badly needed for a document anywhere near this size. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
