I also think that we have managed to
demonstrate conclusively that 10646 isn't up to the job. That leaves
several options:
[...]
Obnoxious summary and proposal:
[...]
For the record: I agree with everything John said in the message
partly quoted above.
I deleted a bit too much from John's message above, and this might
lead to misunderstandings of my position, so let me clarify before
people ask. I agree that 10646 "isn't up to the job" of language
tagging, font tagging and markup such as "emphasis", and that these
need to be defined separately.
Erik