> > That seems like a bug, to me. The effect in Info is not to emphasize the > > text in any way; rather, the _ characters appear there as extraneous > > artefacts. > > This is up to the Info reader; we could, for example, render the text > inside _.._ as italics.
That would be fine. > > Perhaps the conversion to Info should simply strip (i.e. ignore) @emph. > > This suggestion should go to the appropriate Texinfo mailing list (but > I doubt that it will be accepted, since it loses information, and > because this is what @emph produced since long ago). > > Btw, @strong is similarly converted to *..*. Same problem, IMO. I'm all for rendering @emph and @strong, but if we don't do that, I think it's unclear to just add _ and *. In practice, it works OK for short terms (esp without spaces), but you can see the problem when a long phrase is emphasized. That kind of markup is also better for email than for doc, IMO. Anyway, do what you think is best. I obviously was misled in this case, not noticing the other _ and so not thinking that I was seeing emphasis. Perhaps, in this case, if people don't want to tinker with the _ & * convention, that particular passage should have the emphasis removed or confined to just a few choice words. If it is really important to emphasize a long sentence, it can be placed in a para of its own, and even indented, to draw attention to it. I don't think the _'s draw any attention to it at all. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
