"Ed Hirgelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/8/06, Alex Bochannek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's OK to me if */foo/* means italic and bold (this is how Gnus > rendered your example), but */foo/bar* shouldn't. Markers, stacked or > otherwise, should come in symmetrical pairs. > > > Nice example because there is a symmetric pair there. I have always thought > that this was a very ambiguous notation. I can see */foo/bar* meaning that > foo > is in bold italic and bar is just bold with the two words run together.
I am perfectly happy to restrict this notation to require identical marker clusters surrounding the emphasized text. If you want to have text with different emphasis styles run togeter, the below notation seems safer. > For this reason (pesky slashes in path names, + as bullet characters, > underscores in names) I've abandoned this notation. The @<> is more verbose, > but unambiguous. The less typing the better for me. I used to use enriched-mode and the sequences did get a bit tedious. Alex. _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
