From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/3376 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Berend de Boer Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: \bold\ss Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:36:20 +0100 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3A197D34.5040504@nederware.nl> References: <3.0.6.32.20001119231000.00a575a0@pop.wxs.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035394112 16503 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:28:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: siepo@cybercomm.nl, ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-To: Hans Hagen Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:3376 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:3376 Hans Hagen wrote: >> Is it by design that \ss wipes out \bold? Although \ss\bold works as >> expected, \bold\ss results only in \ss. > > > right, \rm \ss \tt \hw \cg ... do a rather massive switch and set the font > to regular > > If this is annoying, I can make it an option. For the casual user \ss\bold or \bold\ss are the same thing. If you don't know about font families and such. I don't mind anymore, but I can remember being suprised a bit by it sometimes as well. Groetjes, Berend. (-: