Conference vaxuum::document_ft

    
    Interesting:  Underlining is not considered an <EMPHASIS> function...
    
    (Personally) I would like to see BOLD, ITALIC, SMALLCAPS, etc.
    extracted as suggested in .0.
    
    

        re .0:
        
        I prefer the current approach; I like seeing the list of
        choices appear when I expand emp with LSE.  I've no
        objection to having both syntaxes available, of course.
        
        re .1:
        
        I'd like to see UNDERLINE become just one more choice
        on EMPHASIS.  I've tried to do it a number of times
        that way, only realizing my error when UNDERLINE didn't
        appear as one of the choices.
        
        Don G. 

 I fully agree with the inclusion of UNDERLINE with emphasis features.
 Also with <BOLD> etc. But, looking back at the LaTeX era on our machine,
 the easy switching in emphasis by just saying \sl  \bf  \it etc. does
 invite people to *use* these features rather often (too often if you ask
 me). So perhaps <EMPHASIS>(something\BOLD) may keep people from doing
 it (especially when unknown with LSE)...

Theo

    Re: .3
    
    The features are there to be used!!  If you're NOT using LSE, then
    looking at something like <BOLD>(text) is much cleaner looking than
    <EMPHASIS>(text\BOLD).  I beleive both syntaxes should exist.
    

    Anyway, about your suggestion for indexing BOLD and ITALIC in 
    the User Manual, Vol. 1, it's an excellent suggestion and will
    be done for the next release (just missed the Version 1 release
    of the book, but there's always next time.)
    Thanks for the suggestion.
    Barbara C., VAX DOC documentation project leader

Just a comment about offering two syntaxes, such as:

                      <BOLD>(text)
                      <EMPHASIS>(text\BOLD)

When I first started using DOCUMENT, making the transition from DSR, I 
wanted something similar.  As a fairly seasoned user, though, I'll argue 
against it for reasons explained below.

I think it was stated somewhere (maybe as far back as BL6 notes), that 
the abbreviated syntax <BOLD>, <ITALICS>, whatever, is not desirable 
because the tag does not indicate *why* the text is being bolded, 
italicized, etc.  The <EMPHASIS> tag, however, does...I want to stress 
this word or words.  Consider that book titles should be underlined or 
put in italics; that's one reason why there is a <BOOK_NAME> tag which
should be used instead of <EMPHASIS>, though both tags accomplish the 
same thing.

Based on this line of thinking, I would like to see <UNDERLINE> go away 
and be replaced by <EMPHASIS>(text\UNDERLINE).  I'm one of those 
users who likes to battle for fewer keystrokes wherever possible; but 
this is a case where I appreciate the philosophy of tagging text
elements correctly more than having fewer keystrokes or offering 
multiple syntax.



Rose

    I agree with the sentiment in .6, but the term EMPHASIS is just
    too general to really add the extra meaning.  BOOK_NAME, on the
    other hand, does have this value, as do KEYWORD, NEWTERM, etc.
    
    However, they all should be there.  Not every document is long enough
    (or long-lived enough) to justify introducing a new abstract term for
    every sort of emphasis.   
    
       Gary
    
    PS Personally, I've always been fond of Scribe's @i for italic, @b for
    bold, @u for underlining, etc.  But that's irrational sentiment. 

    I agree with .7 that EMPHASIS doesn't add any extra meaning.  If
    I saw some text that was <BOLD> or <ITALIC>, I think I would know
    that it is emphasized.
    
    Re: .6  I think that <BOLD>(text) etc. is just cleaner than
    <EMPHASIS>(text\BOLD).  Perhaps some sort of macro capability is
    in order which offers a translation. In thought:
    
    	<DEFINE_MACRO>(BOLD(p1)\<EMPHASIS>(p1\BOLD))
    
    I'd be interested if there is something along these lines (without
    beging complicated and defining a new document type)...
    
    
    					- Lester Waters -