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.
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.
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?
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.