Depends on how that spirit is understood, I suppose: If it’s “AsciiDoc is ASCII (but UTF8-safe),” then this is in direct opposition; OTOH, if it’s “Pure ASCII source is supported,” then that leaves itself open to compatibility extensions using Unicode.
It’s kinda hard to search for “•”, so I have no idea how prevalent this is. I know I’m not the only one with such a preference; I’ve found a parallel discussion on the Commonmark discussion site.
This is very much a ‘camel’s nose’ feature, though. I use U+2022 (•) because there’s an easy Windows keyboard shortcut for it (Alt+0149) and almost all fonts have a glyph for it, but I could definitely see a follow-up request for U+2023 (‣), or the other bullets, or the heart or fleuron or ballot-mark characters. So while I’m proposing this feature and could really use it, I’m not whole-heartedly advocating it.
I can still make a case that it’s useful to allow input characters that do not have other meanings within AsciiDoc: i.e., I’m not proposing that “foo •bar• bas” be treated as identical to “foo *bar* bas”. Also, since CSS only knows about disc, circle, & square bullets, there might not be such a temptation toward proliferation of bullet-input characters.
—Joel
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |