Re: ASCII convention

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:52:28 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
>
> >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?
>
> Because it's a text processor, not an ASCII editor.

That's a stupid answer.

It's because _italics_ is commonplace and /whatever/ isn't.

And I do know that ASCII has nothing to do with italics.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ASCII convention
    ... >>> Because it's a text processor, not an ASCII editor. ... >>That's a stupid answer. ... Commonplace at sci.lang if nowhere else; ... "emphasis," which was how I had interpreted them, but bold and italics ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: ASCII convention
    ... >>> Because it's a text processor, not an ASCII editor. ... >>That's a stupid answer. ... Commonplace at sci.lang if nowhere else; ... "emphasis," which was how I had interpreted them, but bold and italics ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: ASCII convention
    ... >> Because it's a text processor, not an ASCII editor. ... >That's a stupid answer. ... >It's because _italics_ is commonplace ... >And I do know that ASCII has nothing to do with italics. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast