Re: unintended strike-through in table

["Gustav Wikström" <gustav.erik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> Hi Skip,
>
> Skip Collins <skip.collins@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I see little reason to continue to support +strike-through+ text.
> > Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deprecate stricken text and
> > disable it by default, allowing for an option to turn it on for
> > backward compatibility.
>
> I agree.  If no one object, I will make this change soon.
>
> Although I cannot recall myself having used strike-through text I wonder
what the reason is for removing the functionality? Is it just this, that it
(probably) isn't used much? Not a good argument in my book (especially due
to the uncertainty in usage). Would it not be better to fix the problem at
hand? Maybe by changing the symbol since + seems overloaded, would not - be
a better choice?

On a side-note, what is the intended behavior of bold, italic,
strike-through etc. regarding line-breaks? Since a single long line has the
same meaning in org as multiple consecutive short lines I think the
markup-elements above also should support multiple lines of text (but not
be valid between paragraphs)

Regards Gustav

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1701 bytes --]