Highlights, Strikeout, Underlines, Spoilers


#21

Your proposal sounds almost good. One concern is that your triple ***italic+bold*** is already defined as italic+bold . Is there anyway you can get underline+bold without overriding italic+bold ? Like say a 4th level emphasis. At least I do not see people needing italic+underline, or italic+bold+underline, just only bold+underline is needed while preserving italic+bold.

Though ****4th level emph**** is a bit clunky. But is not too bad.


#22

Bold and italic are just the default styles that web browsers give those elements, but <em> is no more defined as italic than links are defined as blue. Sure links are blue by default, but many sites adopt a different style. Let me emphasise the point here again: the styling of content is completely separate from the meaning of the content. Have a look at the CSS Zen Garden site I linked to in the previous post if you’re still unclear about how this separation works in practice.


#23

Fair enough, I rest my point. It’s not that big of a deal for me. But hopefully it won’t be too much of a sticking point for the general population.

So we shall keep highlights, strikeouts, and spoilers, but no underlines. aye?


#24

There are good use cases for spoilers and highlights, potentially strikethrough too.

I suggest this topic is closed since there are already individual topics for each and there is clearly no generic syntax. It is confusing to spread the discussion over multiple topics.


closed #25