From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout-webserver.scc.kit.edu (mailout-webmail.scc.kit.edu [129.13.185.232]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7DFUwZe031436 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by scc-mailout-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1XHaVt-0001Nc-UJ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:30:57 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1XHaVt-0006Yq-SB; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:30:57 +0200 Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XHaVt-0001cp-R1; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:30:57 +0200 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1XHaV9-0006nN-29; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:30:11 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:30:10 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: Joerg Sonnenberger Cc: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Is there any reason not to use for items emphasized with .Em? Message-ID: <20140813153010.GB26534@iris.usta.de> References: <01237D5A-9F46-4047-83BF-A98CAB0C16E1@alum.mit.edu> <20140813014439.GA20283@britannica.bec.de> 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: <20140813014439.GA20283@britannica.bec.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Hi Joerg, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 03:44:39AM +0200: > 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. You mean, in the stylesheets? Maybe. I'll leave that to the general cleanup and unification of the stylesheets, though. To reiterate, i'd like to have one stylesheet instead of three. Yours, Ingo -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv