From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/31071 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Improved (non-annoying) underlining Date: 18 May 2000 17:22:56 -0700 Organization: The Eyrie Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035167522 11955 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:32:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from lisa.math.uh.edu (lisa.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.49]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B5AD051E for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 20:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by lisa.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAB17870; Thu, 18 May 2000 19:23:30 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 18 May 2000 19:22:46 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23051 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 19:22:36 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 79216D051E for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 20:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 23608 invoked by uid 50); 19 May 2000 00:22:56 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Karl Kleinpaste's message of "17 May 2000 08:58:13 -0400" Original-Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:31071 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:31071 Karl Kleinpaste writes: > This is to say that I think the Jargon reference is just plain wrong. > Using "*emphasis like this*" and "*emphasis* *like* *this*" makes no > difference, as displayed by any font-aware reader like Gnus. Well, I certainly disagree with any contention that the Jargon file is wrong here, as *emphasis like this* and *emphasis* *like* *this* do in fact have very different meanings, a difference of meaning that's lost by converting that emphasis into font changes. Of course, for me, this is just more argument against using the font changes at all. :) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)