Re: [Docutils-users] Questions

[Eric A. <eri...@su...>]

(Again: Please reply-all to this post. Thanks.)

Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
 > ...(lots of good stuff)...
 >
Thanks, Beni. Marvelous response. I agree with your
comments. In particular:
   * You're right that italics is the preferred typographic
     emphasis.
   * And that there were no pre-existing standards for
     emphasis vs. strong-emphasis to choose from.

On the other hand, now that Mozilla shows me *foo* in
bold, I've taken to using /foo/ for emphasis, instead.
(But without that interactive feedback device to change
my habits, I would probably have adopted the rst solution,
as well.)

Also:
   * The rst HTML pages are pretty darn sophisticated, so
     the fact that they are rst-based is encouraging. (It's
     as close to complete as I'm ever going to need.)

One thing that struck me as odd, though, were the blank
lines after the underlined headers in the rst file. Is
that required by the standard, or was it just a formatting
option chosen by the writers. (I'm hoping it's the latter.)