Re: ASCII convention

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> 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?

Of course not. It was years before I went to any newsgroup but sci.lang,
and no one at rec.music.classical uses / / for anything at all. And
certainly no one on any of the Lists I've been subscribed to now and
again do so.

If what you say is true, why doesn't Word offer to turn /text/ into
italics, while it does offer to turn _text_ into italics? (It's more
convenient than either Command-I or clicking the I button, but I rarely
remember to do it.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Quantcast