3 Nov 2021 09:23:33 Charles Iliya Krempeaux <cikrempeaux@gmail.com>: > I know — but I think there is a tendency for semantic elements to eventually become (defacto) style elements. > > ⁂ > > The sense I have of this is — > > Regular people don't care whether these were originally for mathematics or not — they look like bold versions of characters. And a number of people are already using them as such. (There are even online tools to help people use them.) > > If Unicode doesn't come up with a semantically “pure” convention for bolding — people will just use these. That's the kind of attitude that made HTML the semantic/presentational spaghetti it is today. We ought to separate semantics from presentation where possible. > And it isn't like we haven't been through this before. > > Back in the day when terminals were common, some of them extended the set of control codes (beyond those that came with the character set), to include bolding. > > For example — > > \e[1m > > ⁂ Isn't that a counter example? Control characters are not printable characters. > Also — > > We (in this community) are doing semantically “impure” things too. > > Unicode has more than one symbol for making bullet lists — > > For example U+2022 “•”. > > Yet when we write Gemtext we use the asterisk (U+002A “*”) for the bullet in the bullet list item. > > And I know this didn't start with Gemtext, and it is an old convention. But we are continuing it. > > ⁂ > > And yes, I know, not everyone's keyboards can easily generate U+2022. But some people's can. Mine can. And (if that is a concern) U+2022 could have been a permitted Gemtext bullet list symbol (in addition to the asterisk). > > ⁂ > > If Gemtext can ignore the original semantics of the asterisk, the back-tick, the pound symbol, the equal symbol, and the greater-than symbol — then why can't we also do the same with those mathematical characters? Gentext is a markup language. It's not supposed to be an exact one-to-one correlation to the resulting presentation. The characters each have a purpose in the Gemtext context. The mathematical characters are mathematical, in whatever context. We, as you touched upon, use '*' because its ASCII, which is the most universal character set and therefore accessible for everyone. It would not be smart to include Unicode core syntax. That's why most programming languages' core syntaxes use ASCII. Otherwise, we'd all be writing in APL-like languages.
---
Previous in thread (10 of 30): 🗣️ Charles Iliya Krempeaux (cikrempeaux (a) gmail.com)
Next in thread (12 of 30): 🗣️ babiak (babiak (a) disroot.org)