Removed forward slash?

Removed forward slash?

[Harry Putnam]

Is gnus gratuitously removing forward slashs from messages?
Or have I just got something set wrong?

I've noticed some recent messages missing forward slashs when
displayed in normal mode.   But the slashes are present when using 
`C-u g'.

The word "unique" is surrounded by for ward slashes "/" below:

Here is /unique/

Here ( is /unique/ again)


Here is (/unique/) yet a third time

Re: Removed forward slash?

[François Pinard]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> Is gnus gratuitously removing forward slashs from messages?
> Or have I just got something set wrong?

Slashes are routinely used to delimit a word meant to be rendered in
italic font, and Gnus removes the slashes while this rendering occurs.
Of course, you may adjust this.  See node `Article Fontisizing' in the
manual, as a starting point, maybe.

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Harry Putnam]

François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:
> 
> > Is gnus gratuitously removing forward slashs from messages?
> > Or have I just got something set wrong?
> 
> Slashes are routinely used to delimit a word meant to be rendered in
> italic font, and Gnus removes the slashes while this rendering occurs.
> Of course, you may adjust this.  See node `Article Fontisizing' in the
> manual, as a starting point, maybe.

I think I'd prefer to have gnus leave things alone that I purposely
type in to be seen.  However, looking through the material at the node
suggested I discovered no clue as to which thing should be set to
"nil" to stop this from happening.  "s" searches on "italic" or
"forward slash" were no more helpful.

Further it seems that this `forward slash removal' thing should default
to nil to begin with.  Users who want special handling of strings
inclosed in forward slashes can figure out how to do it.

Many situations require forward slashes.  Especially in mail about
computer use or unix utils. To be able to "see" what you've typed into a
message shouldn't require lengthy info searches.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[François Pinard]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> écrit:

> However, looking through the material at the node suggested [`Article
> Fontisizing'] I discovered no clue as to which thing should be set to
> "nil" to stop this from happening.  "s" searches on "italic" or "forward
> slash" were no more helpful.

Let me see.  The quoted node immediately speaks about `gnus-emphasis-alist',
which you may modify.  As it makes it pretty clear that Lars calls
`emphasis' the set of phenomena it describes, you might have searched on
`emphasis' and been more successful...  The node also contains a clear
`*Note' pointing to the `Customizing Articles' node, and in that node,
you find the variable `gnus-treat-emphasize', preceded by an explanation
of possible values.  Are you sure you were really seeking for clues? :-)

> I think I'd prefer to have gnus leave things alone that I purposely
> type in to be seen.

The problem is that we may have /varying/ purposes.  For example, in the
previous sentence, I put "varying" between slashes with the purpose that
you will see it italicised. :-)

> Further it seems that this `forward slash removal' thing should default
> to nil to begin with.  Users who want special handling of strings
> inclosed in forward slashes can figure out how to do it.

Asterisks and underline symbols are also usable for emphasis, and disappear
the same way.  On average, people are happy with the current behaviour.
Those are all rather unusual characters in prose, the current behaviour may
be acceptable.  In any case, we are free to turn it on or off by changing
the value of `gnus-treat-emphasize', if the default does not suit us.

> Many situations require forward slashes.  Especially in mail about
> computer use or unix utils. To be able to "see" what you've typed into
> a message shouldn't require lengthy info searches.

Nothing is perfect, you know.  Email is not necessarily about computers,
even if true that for us, it traditionnaly is.  I prefer having to mentally
restore invisible slashes around unexpected italics in a file path name,
rather occasionally, than to execute Gnus command to emphasize on demand,
all the time.  Many of my correspondents emphasise a lot, or regularly.
I prefer to see me (and us :-) more prose-oriented than computer-oriented.
Like dogs do after a shower, let's shake out all this dust of bits we have
on ourselves! :-)

One alternative is that we all start using `text/enriched' text more often
than we do now, but Lars does not much believe it is practical to aim such
a thing, at least from the last time we spoke about it.  I would guess he
is not be completely wrong on this one :-) :-).


P.S. - By the way, the French readers on this list might be amused to know
that `forward slash' is sometimes translated by `cotice' and `backslash' by
`contre-cotice' (I found these as comments within the French translation of
ISO 10646 names).  I like these, and I wish they would become as known as
`perluette' or `arrobas' (yet there are spelling fights about the latter).

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Harry Putnam]

François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> écrit:
> 
> > However, looking through the material at the node suggested [`Article
> > Fontisizing'] I discovered no clue as to which thing should be set to
> > "nil" to stop this from happening.  "s" searches on "italic" or "forward
> > slash" were no more helpful.
> 
> Let me see.  The quoted node immediately speaks about `gnus-emphasis-alist',
> which you may modify.  As it makes it pretty clear that Lars calls
> `emphasis' the set of phenomena it describes, you might have searched on
> `emphasis' and been more successful...  The node also contains a clear
> `*Note' pointing to the `Customizing Articles' node, and in that node,
> you find the variable `gnus-treat-emphasize', preceded by an explanation
> of possible values.  Are you sure you were really seeking for clues? :-)

Not to belabor the point, but, lets try this again: Following the clues
you've given. Article Fonticizing.. regexp there has forward slashes
conspicouisly absent. I quickly found the customizing Articles section you
point to.  Neither the first reference you mentioned nor Customizing
Articles, gives any indication that a forward slash is used to
"emphasize" anything, let alone italicized text. A  full "s" search on
`gnus-article-emphasize'  give two hits, same holds true for
`gnus-emphasis-alist'.  None of those hits make reference to forward
slash.

Now let me ask you if you are sure what you think of as clues are
really clues or are only clues if you already know that forward
slashes emphasize italicized words.  A bit of catch-22 here.
 

> The problem is that we may have /varying/ purposes.  For example, in the
> previous sentence, I put "varying" between slashes with the purpose that
> you will see it italicised. :-)

Point well taken..

And remedy at hand ..
> be acceptable.  In any case, we are free to turn it on or off by changing
> the value of `gnus-treat-emphasize', if the default does not suit us.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Fran^[-Aç^[-Bois Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> I prefer having to mentally restore invisible slashes around
> unexpected italics in a file path name,

...or simply press `W e', which is what I do.  The Gnus command that
emphasizes on demand is in fact a toggle.

> Many of my correspondents emphasise a lot, or regularly.  I prefer
> to see me (and us :-) more prose-oriented than computer-oriented.
> Like dogs do after a shower, let's shake out all this dust of bits
> we have on ourselves! :-)

Yes!  :-)

> P.S. - By the way, the French readers on this list might be amused
> to know that `forward slash' is sometimes translated by `cotice' and
> `backslash' by `contre-cotice'

Eh.  Unfortunately, Croatian doesn't have a single name for slash and
backslash.  The words, when not simply borrowed from English, as Croatian
hackers often do, are normally translated as the Croatian equivalent
of "slanted line (dash)" and "reverse slanted line (dash)".  That's
two and three words for slash and backslash, respectively.  :-(

Re: Removed forward slash?

[François Pinard]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> écrit:

> > P.S. - By the way, the French readers on this list might be amused
> > to know that `forward slash' is sometimes translated by `cotice' and
> > `backslash' by `contre-cotice'

> Eh.  Unfortunately, Croatian doesn't have a single name for slash and
> backslash.  The words, when not simply borrowed from English, as Croatian
> hackers often do, are normally translated as the Croatian equivalent
> of "slanted line (dash)" and "reverse slanted line (dash)".  That's
> two and three words for slash and backslash, respectively.  :-(

Before `cotice' and `contre-cotice', I used to hear `barre oblique' or
`barre oblique renversée', which is so long to pronounce that _even_
I do not hesitate to say `slash' and `backslash'.  It is not a very good
thing to use words like `cotice' when nobody knows what they are, using
them will look somewhat pedant for quite a while.

But such things pass.  I remember when `logiciel' and `matériel' were
introduced to translate `software' and `hardware', how pedant they were
sounding.  The closest opponents were `mentaille' and `quincaille',
appearing equally debatable at the time, but which would look utterly
ridiculous nowadays.  What is pedant or not depends on moving fashion.

MIME, PGP, Unicode, ISO 8601, and a lot of other things, have similar
histories.  Pedant one day, rather normal the other.  Things take time...

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Kai Großjohann]

François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> But such things pass.  I remember when `logiciel' and `matériel' were
> introduced to translate `software' and `hardware', how pedant they were
> sounding.  The closest opponents were `mentaille' and `quincaille',
> appearing equally debatable at the time, but which would look utterly
> ridiculous nowadays.  What is pedant or not depends on moving fashion.

I don't know any French, but I do know that the Academie Française
(sp?) tries to keep foreign words out of the language (I think).  Thus
`ordinateur' rather than `computer'.

Right.  After we have established how little I know, let me admit even
more ignorance: what is it that people use nowadays?
Hardware/software or logiciel/matériel or mentaille/quincaille?
Somehow, I couldn't glean this from your message...

And what's French for slash and backslash?

I think Italian and German are a head-to-head race concerning the
lengths of the words used for stuff.  We have `Schrägstrich' for
`slash' (literally: slanted dash) and I'm not at all sure whether
`umgekehrter Schrägstrich' or `Rückwärtsschrägstrich' is used for
`backslash'.

But at least we have `Auspuff' which is a suitably onomatopoeitic
(sp?) word for exhaust pipe :-)  (`Aus' means `out' and `puff' is
pronounced like `poof'.)

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[François Pinard]

Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> écrit:

> what is it that people use nowadays?
> Hardware/software or logiciel/matériel or mentaille/quincaille?

Either logiciel/matériel or, out of laziness, the English words.

> And what's French for slash and backslash?

As I said earlier: `barre oblique' or `barre oblique renversée', when not the
English words.  I would like `cotice' and `contre-cotice' to become popular.

> I think Italian and German are a head-to-head race concerning the
> lengths of the words used for stuff.  [...]

Yes.  English is often concise, even if much less musical :-).

There is a long way before Babelfish does it all, and Gnus just speaks
my messages.  This would really be fun.  I wonder how it will render
color changes.  Different human voices, maybe? :-)

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Matt Simmons]

>>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

    Hrvoje> ...or simply press `W e', which is what I do.  The Gnus
    Hrvoje> command that emphasizes on demand is in fact a toggle.
But it doesn't restore the font, which is curious.  You go, in this
case, from an italicized word surrounded by whitespace to an
italicized word surrounded by slashes surrounded by whitespace.  Or is 
something wrong with my configuration?

Matt

-- 
     Matt Simmons  -  simmonmt@acm.org  -  http://www.netcom.com/~simmonmt
      "Heaven goes by favour. If it went by merit, you would stay out and
		     your dog would go in."  -- Mark Twain

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Kai Großjohann]

Matt Simmons <simmonmt@acm.org> writes:

> But it doesn't restore the font, which is curious.  You go, in this
> case, from an italicized word surrounded by whitespace to an
> italicized word surrounded by slashes surrounded by whitespace.  Or is 
> something wrong with my configuration?

I also got this a long time ago (pre-Pterry).  Seems to be normal Gnus
behavior.  After thinking about it for a while, I kind of decided that
I liked the behavior :-)

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Matt Simmons <simmonmt@acm.org> writes:

> But it doesn't restore the font, which is curious.  You go, in this
> case, from an italicized word surrounded by whitespace to an
> italicized word surrounded by slashes surrounded by whitespace.

That's what I see, too.  I don't know if it's a bug or a feature.  I
don't mind the current behaviour.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> I think I'd prefer to have gnus leave things alone that I purposely
> type in to be seen.  However, looking through the material at the
> node suggested I discovered no clue as to which thing should be set
> to "nil" to stop this from happening.

Huh?  Given that `gnus-article-emphasis' is an alist, setting it to
nil will naturally remove the whole effect.

> Further it seems that this `forward slash removal' thing should
> default to nil to begin with.

That's in the same ballpark with handling *bold* and _underline_, so
if these stay on by default, "forward slash removal" probably should
as well.  Besides, when your Emacs correctly displays italic, it's
usually easy to trace what happened.

It might make sense to turn off the features when rendering articles
on displays without any face support whatsoever (such as under GNU
Emacs on a TTY.)

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Kai Großjohann]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> Huh?  Given that `gnus-article-emphasis' is an alist, setting it to
> nil will naturally remove the whole effect.

And then there's the variable gnus-treat-emphasize...  I set it to nil
because I kept wondering why so many people in the Emacs groups
emphasize the word `scratch' so much ;-)

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Toby Speight]

Harry> Harry Putnam <URL:mailto:reader@newsguy.com>

0> In <URL:news:m3k8rz5pb9.fsf@satellite.local.lan>, Harry wrote:

Harry> I think I'd prefer to have gnus leave things alone that I
Harry> purposely type in to be seen.

So do I.  Here's my preferred fix, which does the fontifying but
doesn't hide anything:

(setq gnus-emphasis-alist
      (mapcar (lambda (x)
          (list (car x) (nth 2 x) (nth 2 x) (nth 3 x)))
              gnus-emphasis-alist))

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> "s" searches on "italic" or "forward slash" were no more helpful.

I've now added "slash" (and the rest) to the concept index.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Hrvoje Niksic]

Fran^[-Aç^[-Bois Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Slashes are routinely used to delimit a word meant to be rendered in
> italic font, and Gnus removes the slashes while this rendering
> occurs.

I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does not render
italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that case, italicizing
will really look like "removing slashes", which is quite
disconcerting.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Harry Putnam]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> Fran^[-Aç^[-Bois Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> 
> > Slashes are routinely used to delimit a word meant to be rendered in
> > italic font, and Gnus removes the slashes while this rendering
> > occurs.
> 
> I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does not render
> italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that case, italicizing
> will really look like "removing slashes", which is quite
> disconcerting.

Hrvoje has hit another point I failed to include.  I keep italic
display off, because Italics look terrible in the fonts I have. Never
did like Italics.  Never noticed the business of disappearing slashes
until yesterday.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Kai Großjohann]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> Hrvoje has hit another point I failed to include.  I keep italic
> display off, because Italics look terrible in the fonts I have.

I use the ETL fonts (intlfonts package on ftp.gnu.org and its
mirrors), and I *love* them.  I use the following font which is
probably too large for anything lower than 1280x1024:

-etl-fixed-medium-r-normal--16-160-72-72-c-80-iso8859-1

While italic looks less than wonderful with this font, it is not at
all abominable, I think.

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Norman Walsh]

/ Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> was heard to say:
| I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does not render
| italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that case, italicizing
| will really look like "removing slashes", which is quite
| disconcerting.

This thread has just caused me to notice that neither bold nor
italic seem to be working on my emacs, though underlining does
(and the font I'm using is available in both variations, I
believe).

This is Emacs 20.3.1 under NT using the face

  (set-default-font "-*-Fixedsys-normal-r-*-*-13-97-*-*-c-*-*-ansi-")

Several debugging forays have lead nowhere. Anyone with experience
debugging faces have a suggestion?

                                        Cheers,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Always keep a song in your
http://nwalsh.com/                 | heart--it's like karaoke for the
                                   | voices in your head.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Rui Zhu]

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

> / Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> was heard to say:
> | I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does not render
> | italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that case, italicizing
> | will really look like "removing slashes", which is quite
> | disconcerting.
> 
> This thread has just caused me to notice that neither bold nor
> italic seem to be working on my emacs, though underlining does
> (and the font I'm using is available in both variations, I
> believe).
> 
> This is Emacs 20.3.1 under NT using the face
> 
>   (set-default-font "-*-Fixedsys-normal-r-*-*-13-97-*-*-c-*-*-ansi-")
> 
> Several debugging forays have lead nowhere. Anyone with experience
> debugging faces have a suggestion?

I had the same behavior after I upgraded emacs from 20.2.x to 20.3.x.  I
used to set fontset in X resource file.  Though I know 9x15 has bold,
but emacs did not show me that.  The reason I just found is that in
`create-fontset-from-x-resource' of `fontset.el' there is such a call:

(create-fontset-from-fontset-spec fontset-spec nil 'noerror)
                                               ^^^

(see info) so that no other styles is created for user specified
fontsets.  Now I create my fontsets in .emacs my self, then it's all
right, in fact I'd prefer to do that in the elisp way.

But I don't know what one should do on NT.

Cheers,
        Rui

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Paul Stevenson]

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does not render
> italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that case, italicizing
> will really look like "removing slashes", which is quite
> disconcerting.

I use the lucidasans fonts since they look quite pretty at 12pt which is
the largest such that I can have 2 80 column emacs frames + scrollbars
side by side on my screen.  Lucidasans doesn't have an italic
representation and I thought I had got round this by setting
Emacs.italic.attributeForeground: hotpink
in my .Xdefaults.  Only due to this discussion have I realised that not
all 'italic' faces pick this up - gnus-emphasis-[bold-]italic does not
change its colour.  Ought I consider this a bug?

Paul

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Stainless Steel Rat]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* Paul Stevenson <spaul@mail.phy.ornl.gov>  on Sun, 18 Jul 1999
| I use the lucidasans fonts since they look quite pretty at 12pt which is
| the largest such that I can have 2 80 column emacs frames + scrollbars
| side by side on my screen.

The Lucida faces were designed specifically for display on CRTs; IMO they
do an excelent job of it.

| Lucidasans doesn't have an italic representation

The TrueType Lucida Sans and Lucida Sans Typewriter faces do indeed have
italic representations.  I use them frequently (thank you, whomever is
responsible for the TrueType renderer in XFree86 3.3.3).  Unfortunately
they are not freely available, which means you have to pay for them if you
want them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE3km1Cgl+vIlSVSNkRAvh0AKC7f+LHF6Az2etY14FFCbSS98R6HACeJ7q+
4+pCiX5wEKAS0UHBLdvuopg=
=ekxN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ Earth, presumably from outer space.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Kai Großjohann]

Paul Stevenson <spaul@mail.phy.ornl.gov> writes:

> [...] Only due to this discussion have I realised that not all
> 'italic' faces pick this up - gnus-emphasis-[bold-]italic does not
> change its colour.  Ought I consider this a bug?

I guess a similar line with bold-italic rather than italic will take
care of that.  I'm not sure whether this is behavior should be changed.

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Paul Stevenson]

Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes:

> Paul Stevenson <spaul@mail.phy.ornl.gov> writes:
> 
> > [...] Only due to this discussion have I realised that not all
> > 'italic' faces pick this up - gnus-emphasis-[bold-]italic does not
> > change its colour.  Ought I consider this a bug?
> 
> I guess a similar line with bold-italic rather than italic will take
> care of that.  I'm not sure whether this is behavior should be changed.

by the [bold-] notation I meant that both gnus-emphasis-italic and
gnus-emphasis-bold-italic had the same behaviour (hmm, perhaps I ought
really have used a regexp).  I thought that at least
gnus-emphasis-italic should pick up the Emacs.italic.* attributes. As
you say, it's not quite so serious that bold-italic doesn't pick it up
(although I'm not sure if one can specify a 'bolditalic' attribute - If
not one might expect a font to pick up both bold and italic attributes
seperately.)

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Kai Großjohann]

Paul Stevenson <spaul@mail.phy.ornl.gov> writes:

> by the [bold-] notation I meant that both gnus-emphasis-italic and
> gnus-emphasis-bold-italic had the same behaviour (hmm, perhaps I ought
> really have used a regexp).  I thought that at least
> gnus-emphasis-italic should pick up the Emacs.italic.* attributes. As
> you say, it's not quite so serious that bold-italic doesn't pick it up
> (although I'm not sure if one can specify a 'bolditalic' attribute - If
> not one might expect a font to pick up both bold and italic attributes
> seperately.)

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is.  For Emacs, these things are
just opaque identifiers, and it does not associate a meaning with the
word "italic" or something like that.  Gnus could have used the
standard italic face as a starting point for defining
gnus-emphasis-italic, but apparently, it didn't.

Thus, you might need to add similar lines for
"Emacs.gnus-emphasis-italic.attributeForeground" and
"Emacs.gnus-emphasis-bold-italic.attributeForeground" as well as
"Emacs.bold-italic.attributeForeground".

As you have probably already guessed by now, the thing that goes
between "Emacs." and ".attributeForeground" is a face name.  Type M-x
list-faces-display RET for a list of all faces (and a sample of each).

kai
-- 
Life is hard and then you die.

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Thomas Lofgren]

>>>>> "HN" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

    HN> Fran^[-Aç^[-Bois Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
    >> Slashes are routinely used to delimit a word meant to be
    >> rendered in italic font, and Gnus removes the slashes while
    >> this rendering occurs.

    HN> I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does
    HN> not render italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that
    HN> case, italicizing will really look like "removing slashes",
    HN> which is quite disconcerting.

I quite often find myself working on a tty, and unable to see italics
and bold any different from regular text.  The default Gnus behavior
is very impractical for this purpose.  I know it can be toggled off,
but it strikes me as strange that the default behavior is to interpret
the content as if it was something other than plain text.  Sure, it's
nice to have the bold and italics at times, but I don't think we have
to lower ourselves to the general software industry where appearance
is more important than functionality.  Let the users toggle it on if
they want it.

At the very least, there should be a check if we're on a tty, and
toggled off if that is the case.  That's really not enough, though, as
some people (for whatever reason) use fonts that can't be italicized
even under X.

Tom
-- 
T. Lofgren <lofgren@sics.se> - Wherever I lay my .emacs, that's my ${HOME}
Software, not beer

Re: Removed forward slash?

[Jaap-Henk Hoepman]

On 17 Jul 1999 18:44:56 +0200 Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:
> Fran^[-Aç^[-Bois Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> 
> > Slashes are routinely used to delimit a word meant to be rendered in
> > italic font, and Gnus removes the slashes while this rendering
> > occurs.
> 
> I suspect that it might be the case that Harry's Emacs does not render
> italics correctly, for whatever reason.  In that case, italicizing
> will really look like "removing slashes", which is quite
> disconcerting.

Indeed! I use a 9x15 font with XEmacs which does not have a corresponding
italics font. Previous XEmacsen picked very ugly replacements for it; I finally
managed to hack it such that italic font properties are ignored.  This looks
better, usuallu, but... only when this thread started did I discover that Gnus
treats forward slashes special as well...

Probably gnus-treat-emphasize should default to nil.

Jaap-Henk

-- 
Jaap-Henk Hoepman             | Come sail your ships around me
Dept. of Computer Science     | And burn these bridges down
University of Twente          |       Nick Cave - "Ship Song"
Email: hoepman@cs.utwente.nl === WWW: www.cs.utwente.nl/~hoepman
Phone: +31 53 4893795 === Secr: +31 53 4893770 === Fax: +31 53 4894590
PGP ID: 0xF52E26DD  Fingerprint: 1AED DDEB C7F1 DBB3  0556 4732 4217 ABEF