Re: ASCII convention
- From: Ruud Harmsen <realemailseesite13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:12:19 +0200
Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:04:59 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
>> >>Many people think just the opposite. Anyway, it's a reality in this
>> >>medium. Just as it's a reality that by writing *foo* you make some
>> >>people see foo in bold, some people see *foo* in bold, and some people
>> >>just *foo* with no typographic feature.
>> >
>> > You seem to suggest that html is acceptable in newsgroups. It isn't.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand what I'm writing about. Nowhere did I
>> mention HTML or even allude to it.
>
>If there is a way of seeing italics or bold in an email or newsgroup
>message other than html, I don't know about it.
The convention (from the stone age of internet) is: *bold*, /italics/,
_underlined_. You mean you really didn't know that?
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- References:
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Joachim Pense
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Joachim Pense
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Yusuf B Gursey
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: ASCII convention
- Prev by Date: Re: ASCII convention
- Next by Date: Re: ASCII convention
- Previous by thread: Re: ASCII convention
- Next by thread: Re: ASCII convention
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|