From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Italicise block of text Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:02:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87k3dtxo78.fsf@gmail.com> References: <52D585BF.70300@mun.ca> <87txcx9tai.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34564) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5eii-0003Ys-6O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:02:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5eic-0005DO-2k for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:02:36 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]:46324) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W5eib-0005CB-LL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:02:29 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id t60so8219213wes.4 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:02:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87txcx9tai.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> (Eric S. Fraga's message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:46:45 +0000") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Samuel Wales Cc: Roger Mason , org-mode Hello, Eric S Fraga writes: > Samuel Wales writes: > >> Dunno if this makes sense, but now that we have @@html: ... @@ etc., I >> wonder if it is worth considering @@italic: ... @@, or @@emphasis /: >> ... @@, or @@emphasis italic: ... @@. >> Or $[emphasis :beg "/"] ... $[emphasis :end] as previously discussed. > > No. Please no! We'll end up with XML before long :-( > > Semantically, the use of @@ is for actions that are export target > specific whereas italic etc. are text markup and inherently export > target neutral (generally). Very different beasts... > > One major attraction of org, for me, is the minimal clutter introduced > by the language so that it doesn't get in the way of the writing. I don't think we need another syntax for emphasis. Moreover, the three lines limitation can be removed at some point, i.e., once we have a powerful enough fontification system. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou