From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Wed Jul 28 2010 - 23:32:05 CDT
Murray Sargent <murrays at exchange dot microsoft dot com> wrote:
> It's worth remembering that plain text is a format that was introduced
> due to the limitations of early computers. Books have always been
> rendered with at least some degree of rich text. And due to the
> complexity of Unicode, even Unicode plain text often needs to be
> rendered with more than one font.
I disagree with this assessment of plain text. When you consider the
basic equivalence of the "same" text written in longhand by different
people, typed on a typewriter, finger-painted by a child, spray-painted
through a stencil, etc., it's clear that the "sameness" is an attribute
of the underlying plain text. None of these examples has anything to do
with computers, old or new.
I do agree that rich text has existed for a long time, possibly as long
as plain text (though I doubt that, when you consider really early
writing technologies like palm leaves), but I don't think that refutes
the independent existence of plain text. And I don't think the need to
use more than one font to render some Unicode text implies it isn't
plain text. I think that has more to do with aesthetics (a rich-text
concept) and technical limits on font size.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 28 2010 - 23:36:42 CDT