[Pmwiki-users] the descriptions of emphasis
Jonathan Scott Duff
Thu Dec 2 09:47:23 CST 2004
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:46:37AM -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> It also preserves a nice symmetry that has developed
> for the inline styles (John Rankin deserves the credit for this):
> '/*bold italic*/'
'*/italic bold/*' ???
> '''strong emphasis'''
slight stream of conciousness here ...
Are you proposing to make all of these work by default in pmwiki? And if
so, would '++bigger++' DWIM? Assuming so, there would seem to be some
minor cognitive difficulty. Does '///foo///' make "foo" more italic
(leaning ever farther towards the base line :)? Does '**foo**' make
"foo" more bold (though, there is some merit to increasing font weight)?
Or would those two simply be synonyms for '/foo/' and '*foo*'? Same
for super- and sub-scripts.
Also, '/*bold italic*/' seems to imply that compositions are allowed.
I hope this isn't really true as I don't ever want to see '+_*''/big
subscript bold emphasized italic/''*_+' in a wiki page even as a joke.
> Indeed, we could even continue this symmetry to get rid of
> the totally ugly @@monospace@@ markup and substitute one of
There's something to be said for the character doubling in
@@monospace@@. It /is/ easier to type that '@monospace@'. But that
said, I'm all for consistency; if it helps people remember the markup
then '@monospace@' is fine by me.
> And perhaps all of the monospace markup should just be relegated to
> Anyway, to get back to the original suggestion, I think my preference
> would be to keep ''emphasis'' and '''strong''' as they are now, so that
> there's still a way to write content structurally, and introduce
> '/italic/' and '*bold*' for the <b> and <i> tags.
Definitely keep ''emphasis'' and '''strong''' the way they are.
'*bold*' and '/italic/' work too as long as we don't accidentally
imply any generalizations that aren't there. See above :-)
Jonathan Scott Duff
duff at pobox.com
More information about the pmwiki-users