From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Bochannek Subject: Re: [Orgmode] Emphasis font-lock question. Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:50:46 -0700 Message-ID: References: <6905fe866ab79ff425d2c7e1ce1a166b@science.uva.nl> <44d0d9630609081009p3dd25905m9969d458f51520b2@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GLkVF-0004v3-8b for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:50:57 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GLkVD-0004uY-FS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:50:56 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GLkVD-0004uU-94 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:50:55 -0400 Received: from [207.17.137.64] (helo=colo-dns-ext2.juniper.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.52) id 1GLkVq-0002Wp-1z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:51:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44d0d9630609081009p3dd25905m9969d458f51520b2@mail.gmail.com> (Ed Hirgelt's message of "Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:09:16 -0700") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ed Hirgelt Cc: emacs-orgmode "Ed Hirgelt" writes: > On 9/8/06, Alex Bochannek wrote: > > > It's OK to me if */foo/* means italic and bold (this is how Gnus > rendered your example), but */foo/bar* shouldn't. Markers, stacked or > otherwise, should come in symmetrical pairs. > > > Nice example because there is a symmetric pair there. I have always thought > that this was a very ambiguous notation. I can see */foo/bar* meaning that foo > is in bold italic and bar is just bold with the two words run together. I am perfectly happy to restrict this notation to require identical marker clusters surrounding the emphasized text. If you want to have text with different emphasis styles run togeter, the below notation seems safer. > For this reason (pesky slashes in path names, + as bullet characters, > underscores in names) I've abandoned this notation. The @<> is more verbose, > but unambiguous. The less typing the better for me. I used to use enriched-mode and the sequences did get a bit tedious. Alex.