On 2018-11-27 8:33 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > ... >> Bold or italic or underlined text shouldn't be a second class concept, >> they have meaning that can be lost when text is conveyed in >> circa-1868-plain-text. I've read many letters that predate the >> invention of the typewriter, emphasis is often conveyed using >> underlines or darkened letters. > > I don't think of bold or italic or underline as second class concepts. I > tend to think of the following attributes that can be applied to text: > > · bold > · italic > · overline > · strike through > · underline > · superscript exclusive or subscript > · uppercase exclusive or lowercase > · opposing case > · normal (none of the above) >
This covers only a small fraction of the Latin-centric typographic palette - much of which has existed for 500 years in print (non-Latin much older). Computerisation has only impoverished that palette, and this is how it happens: Checklists instead of research. Work with typographers when trying to represent typography in a computer. The late Hermann Zapf was Knuth's close friend. That's the kind of expertise you need on your team. --Toby > I don't think that normal is superior to the other four (five) in any > way. I do think that normal does occur VASTLY more frequently than the > any combination of the others. As such normal is what things default to > as an optimization. IMHO that optimization does not relegate the other > styles to second class. > ...