Why multiple pairs ?
If the intent is just to mark within the encoded text those sequences that
are not interpretable as plain-text alone, because it is mixing characters
from an upper-layer syntax, and characters from a pictographic script, a
single pair of format controls would be enough.
BEGIN PICTOGRAPHIC MARKUP
END PICTOGRAPHIC MARKUP
This would leave completely the markup languages outside of Unicode, when
these scripts are just encoded for a subset of base pictograms, but not
their layout. which uses an unspecified markup language. If the text is
monolingual, these are not needed. But of the text is multilingual and
contains sequences from a normal Bidi-compatible script, then the role of
these controls will just be to disable temporarily the markup language for
these types of embedding.
2012/12/1 William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>
> On Thursday 29 November 2012, Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org> wrote a
> detailed reply to a post that I had made.
>
> Would it be a good idea to define a new block of characters within
> Unicode/10646 such that characters would be encoded in pairs, possibly with
> visible glyphs as context-specific markup brackets?
>
> For example, the block could be named as Context-specific markup brackets.
>
> For example, there could be the following.
>
> HIEROGLYPHIC MARKUP START
> HIEROGLYPHIC MARKUP END
> SIGNWRITING MARKUP START
> SIGNWRITING MARKUP END
>
> and other pairs for various systems when encoded.
>
Received on Sat Dec 01 2012 - 09:41:24 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Dec 01 2012 - 09:41:26 CST