3 ms·

So frustrating that both Markdown and this don't support underlines.

by kbd 11y ago

treve 11y ago
I don't think this is the right way to look at this. They both transform to the most sensible html given the input. If you want to use an underline for emphasis instead of cursive, this is more of a style concern than anything else, so the appropriate place to change this would be in the stylesheet, which is perfectly possible. If you specifically want it to output the <u> html tag, I agree that this is not as convenient.
- grimman 11y ago
  > They both transform to the most sensible html given the input. I'm going to have to disagree with you. Long before Markdown came along, the convention was to use asterisks for * bold *, slashes for /italics/ and underscores for _underlined_ text. And that's just for starters. Those three examples perfectly convey the intended effect, quite unlike the Markdown versions where asterisks will somehow imply italics, but only if they're single asterisks? It's a strange thing!
  - treve 11y ago
    The point is that bold, italics, underline are all a property of the style, but not intent. The intent is "emphasis". How emphasis is rendered is dependent on the stylesheet.
    - kayamon 11y ago
      If the intent is simply "emphasis", why are there different ways of expressing it?
ape4 11y ago
I agree. _this_should_be_underlined_
bobisme 11y ago
That's because underlining is inferior typography. It's from back in the typewriter days when the only way to add emphasis was to back up and put underscores underneath the text. Either bold or italic is more preferable.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Underlining also represents the thing you often do with a pen on printed text. It's perfectly OK and useful type of formatting online.
  - Mtinie 11y ago
    That's well and good, but the reason that it is appropriate when using a pen on printed text is that the vast majority of people don't differentiate their penmanship when representing emphasized text. Historically underlined content == actionable hyperlink; for content that is intended for public consumption (ie. not a note that you're writing for your own use) there are usability issues with typographic styles that represent emphasis with an underline.

So frustrating that both Markdown and this don't support underlines.

by kbd 11y ago

So frustrating that both Markdown and this don't support underlines.

treve 11y ago

I don't think this is the right way to look at this. They both transform to the most sensible html given the input. If you want to use an underline for emphasis instead of cursive, this is more of a style concern than anything else, so the appropriate place to change this would be in the stylesheet, which is perfectly possible. If you specifically want it to output the <u> html tag, I agree that this is not as convenient.

grimman 11y ago
> They both transform to the most sensible html given the input. I'm going to have to disagree with you. Long before Markdown came along, the convention was to use asterisks for * bold *, slashes for /italics/ and underscores for _underlined_ text. And that's just for starters. Those three examples perfectly convey the intended effect, quite unlike the Markdown versions where asterisks will somehow imply italics, but only if they're single asterisks? It's a strange thing!
- treve 11y ago
  The point is that bold, italics, underline are all a property of the style, but not intent. The intent is "emphasis". How emphasis is rendered is dependent on the stylesheet.
  - kayamon 11y ago
    If the intent is simply "emphasis", why are there different ways of expressing it?

ape4 11y ago

I agree. _this_should_be_underlined_

bobisme 11y ago

That's because underlining is inferior typography. It's from back in the typewriter days when the only way to add emphasis was to back up and put underscores underneath the text. Either bold or italic is more preferable.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Underlining also represents the thing you often do with a pen on printed text. It's perfectly OK and useful type of formatting online.
- Mtinie 11y ago
  That's well and good, but the reason that it is appropriate when using a pen on printed text is that the vast majority of people don't differentiate their penmanship when representing emphasized text. Historically underlined content == actionable hyperlink; for content that is intended for public consumption (ie. not a note that you're writing for your own use) there are usability issues with typographic styles that represent emphasis with an underline.