Woah! We got points now?

I'm a journalist (caveat: background is history and I am also a computer nerd on the side) and punctuation inside quotes always irked me too. It comes from a scribal notion that punctuation must set apart sentences. Of course, with the advent of typing, and what's more, computerized spacing, having punctuation inside a quote is as necessary as double-spacing after a period. One family in the 1700s created most modern punctuation, or so I've been told (wanna go look up the specifics again). At that time, the material inside quotations was most often spoken. Today, when we can schmear, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V so quickly, so much more quoted text was something typed. In that context, I think it's high-time our punctuation evolved to meet the demands of a world as likely to communicate through a keyboard as a vocal cord. Punctuation itself is evolving as we learn to commit body language to text. Look at this sentence: Jump if I say "Red," "Blue," "Purple" or "Green." Jump if I say "Red", "Blue", "Purple" or "Green". The above is correct. The below, however, is easier to understand. This is because the computer literate populace places greater meaning on punctuation -- we see the comma a as pause, not a separator. We have also found ways of expressing EMPHASIS using capitals, raising an eyebrow (?), expressing surprise (!), and even expressing accompanying emotions, like showing something is meant to be taken lightly -- :) -- or knowingly -- ;). Such emoticonning doesn't translate well to current standards of AP, CHS, APA, MLA, etc. On the other hand, because we so seldom use "smart quotes" anymore, having an end-quote followed by a quote marks gets confusing. Better, IMO, to have only the material quoted inside the marks.