On 2/12/19 12:05 PM, Kent Karlsson via Unicode wrote:
Den 2019-02-12 03:20, skrev "Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode"
<[email protected]>:
On 2/11/19 5:46 PM, Kent Karlsson via Unicode wrote:
Continuing too look deep into the crystal ball, doing some more
hand swirls...
...
...
The scheme quoted (far) below (from wjgo_10009), or anything like it,
will NEVER be part of Unicode!
Not in Unicode, but I have to say I'm intrigued by the idea of writing
HTML with tag characters (not even necessarily "restricted" HTML: the
whole deal). This does NOT make it possible to write "italics in plain
text," since you aren't writing plain text. But what you can do is
write rich text (HTML) that Just So Happens to look like plain text when
rendered with a plain-text-renderer (and maybe there could be
plain-text-renderers that straddle the line, maybe supporting some
limited subset of HTML and doing boldface and italics or something.
And so would ESC/command sequences as such, if properly skipped for display.
If some are interpreted, those would affect the display of other characters.
Just like "HTML in tag characters" would. A show invisibles mode would
display both ESC/command sequences as well as "HTML in tag characters"
characters.
Very true. Maybe the explicitness of HTML appealed to me; escape
sequences feel more like... you know, computer "codes" and all. (which
of course is what all this is anyway! So what's wrong with that?)
BUT, this would NOT be a Unicode feature/catastrophe at all. This would
be purely the decision of the committee in charge of HTML/XML and
related standards, to decide to accept Unicode tag characters as if they
were ASCII for the purposes of writing XML tags/attributes &c. It's
I have no say on HTML/CSS, but I would venture to predict that those
who do have a say, would not be keen on that idea. And XML tags in
general need not be in ASCII. And... identifiers in CSS need not
be in pure ASCII either... And attribute values, like filenames
including those that refer to CSS files (CSS is preferably stored
separately from the HTML/XML), certainly need not be pure ASCII.)
So, no, I'd say that that idea is completely dead.
You're probably right, and CSS is practically a different animal, and I
guess at best one would have to settle for a stripped-down version of
HTML (in which case, why bother?) And again, all this is before we even
consider other issues; I can't shake the feeling that there security
nightmares lurking inside this idea.
~mark
