From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/3875 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "H. Ramm" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: "Negative" font switches Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 17:40:55 +0100 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3A72FA12.E8FD0ED4@gmx.net> References: <000301c087e0$4ce257e0$a3ccfea9@nuovo> <021801c087e5$c2b3d5c0$a3ccfea9@nuovo> Reply-To: fiee.visuelle@gmx.net NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035394584 20887 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:36:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: ConTeXt Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:3875 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:3875 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > No. I see your point: it would always be possible to say > > {\local setups {\bf Some bold} and some not bold {\bf more bold}} > > Ok, maybe it's not needed after all. (Unless I can think of something in the > future ...) Remember: If you use {\em an emphasis {\em within} an emphasis} you have a switch like you wanted. If you normally want to emphasize with bold font you should map it onto \em (--> logical markup!) -- Grüßlis vom Hraban! --- http://angerweit.tikon.ch/ http://www.drucktechniker2001.de/ http://www.planet-interkom.de/fiee.visuelle/formelsammlung.html