Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

The pitch is that if some languages are still considered “needing” rich text where others are correctly represented in plain text (stress, abbreviations), the Standard needs to be updated in a way that it fully supports actually all languages.

There will always be some texts (in the most general sense of this term!) that will require certain features found only in rich text, and there are some unusual orthographies don't play well in the context of certain technologies (for an extreme example there's an orthography out there that uses @ as a letter -- we know that won't work well with email addresses and duplicate encoding of the @ shape is a complete non-starter).

A./