CategoryTWikiSyntax

In some cases it is useful to write underlined text. What is a syntax that is intuitive, easy to remember and does not break existing content? The underline sign would be intuitive but this character is already taken by the italic rule.

1. Minus sign: -underlined text-
   • OK to remember
   • some chance to break existing text
2. (add yours)

Contributors:
-- PeterThoeny - 27 Jan 2004

In this case I think it's worth breaking the existing text for the more logical usage. It also leaves the minus sign free for StrikeThroughShortHand.

How hard would it be to write a script to change existing content to the new character? If it can't work 100% and it errors on the side of caution then at least underline is providing similar emphasis to italic.

-- SamHasler - 27 Jan 2004

"In same cases it is useful to write" -- which cases?

1. Underlined text is a typgraphic no-no and on the web it can be easily confused with links.
2. And it breaks all kinds of existing usages.
3. And no, converting is not that easy.
4. And those who really, really want to commit this sin, can use the fairly short <u> HTML tag.

So just forget it!

My 2¢ PeterKlausner - 27 Jan 2004

It is certainly an option to forget this feature; it's at the brainstorming stage.

I would not want to introduce a change to the spec that requires a global search&replace of existing content, this goes against the TWikiMission, and intruduces problems down the road (like inconsistent content when restoring data from backup).

-- PeterThoeny - 28 Jan 2004

I - and I'm sure many others - already had a meta-character for underscore before being introduced to wiki; for many, many years underscore in plain text e-mail has been interpreted as underlining . For a long time I persisted in typing:

• _underscore_ for underlines
• /slashes/ for italics

Given that we are where we are, and you lot won't want to change the meaning of _ (though I can't see why not - it just means "emphasise" doesn't it?) then I guess -minus- is the best option. And I don't agree that it's a typographic no-no - where does that idea come from? Underscore is a well documented feature of proof-reading, where it is used to draw attention to text.

-- CrawfordCurrie - 08 Feb 2004

Personally, I find underline in web pages very annoying as you confuse it with links so easily. Especially in printed text there is no telling apart. My 2c is that this is not worth wasting a special character on. I'd rather use the free character for an as easy as possible notation for <nop>. Regarding the "/" character, please be aware that this is the directory separator on unix based systems and is used often in text. In summary, my vote would be "no special syntax for underline".

-- ThomasWeigert - 08 Feb 2004

It seems that there are different conventions around here. Doesn't make it easier to pick the right syntax. Google:underline+typography turns up differing opinions on the goodness of underlines. My vote: "no special syntax for underline".

-- PeterKlausner - 02 Mar 2004