From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de [81.169.146.221]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7D1immR029085 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:44:49 -0400 (EDT) X-RZG-AUTH: :JiIXek6mfvEEUpFQdo7Fj1/zg48CFjWjQv0cW+St/nW/afgnrylsiWyobi5+yw== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from britannica.bec.de (ip-109-45-2-152.web.vodafone.de [109.45.2.152]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 35.6 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id 605be0q7D1ikFAc (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:44:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:44:39 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:44:39 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Is there any reason not to use for items emphasized with .Em? Message-ID: <20140813014439.GA20283@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv References: <01237D5A-9F46-4047-83BF-A98CAB0C16E1@alum.mit.edu> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01237D5A-9F46-4047-83BF-A98CAB0C16E1@alum.mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:44:07PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote: > Is there any reason not to use that tag for text emphasized with .Em? I like the idea, but I wonder if we should just drop the manual rules. Joerg -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv