Re: ASCII convention
- From: Ruud Harmsen <realemailseesite13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:44:30 +0200
Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:51:07 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
>It was explained to me (to all the readers) years ago when I first
>started coming here. The two things * * and _ _ didn't simply indicate
>"emphasis," which was how I had interpreted them, but bold and italics
>respectively. Of course I never saw / / used for anything but phonemic
>transcriptions.
There you are right, that is my experience too. I learnt about /.../
much later.
There another advantage of CSS again: in HTML, emphasis can be
indicated with <strong>...</strong>, better than directly using
<i>...</i> etc. With external CSS, you can define what strong should
actually look like (italics, bold, colour, larger type, whatever)
elsewhere, but a whole site or parts of it, without altering any HTML.
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- References:
- 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
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Ruud Harmsen
- Re: ASCII convention
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- 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
|