Re: Language Creation: The International Language Construction Bulletin (working title :)) )

On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
[snip]
>  Underlining is fine for typewriters and handwriting where
> > changes in font are impossible or difficult, but when you can
> > italicise,
> > you italicise. Underlining is an ugly kludge. Don't underline if you
> > can
> > help it.
> >
>
> Yep! Definitely agree. But the question was just about how things are done, not
> whether they are advisable or not. I was under the assumption that most people
> here know the basic rules of typography, like the use of italics and the ban on
> underlining :)) .
[snip]

<pedantic note>

Strictly speaking, an author should not even think in terms of underlining
or italicizing; but rather use \emph{} to indicate emphasis, and possibly
define other logical markups (e.g. \booktitle{...}, \journaltitle{...},
etc.) rather than physical markups. It should be the editor's, not the
author's, job to decide which font(s) should be used, and how emphases
should be marked (either with bold or with italics or with whatever else).

Since we have many authors and contributors, it might be helpful for the
editor(s) to define a common set of logical markups that can be
consistently used by all authors.

</pedantic note>


--
The diminished 7th chord is the most flexible and fear-instilling chord. Use
it often, use it unsparingly, to subdue your listeners into submission!

Replies