|
|
Posted by sbt on 10/03/52 11:36
In article <BFE1E62D.14150D%chrisridd@mac.com>, Chris Ridd
<chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/06 8:27, in article michelle-B77AD2.13275104012006@news.west.cox.net,
> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <BFE1DF25.1414E2%chrisridd@mac.com>,
> > Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> It has meant italics for at least the fifteen years I've been on
> >>> usenet.
> >>
> >> We've been around about the same time then, and I still haven't seen
> >> them used that way.
> >
> > different newsgroups maybe? Of course, if someone uses slashes and
> > someone else uses underscores, it's to bring attention to what's between
> > them; however, we really don't know what the poster had meant by them,
> > do we--and does it really matter whether I emphasize with /slashes/,
> > with _underscores_, or with *asterisks*? You know that it's for
> > emphasis.
> >
> > About the only time it might make a difference is if you're typing
> > something that would be italicized in print, such as the title of a book.
>
> I agree!
>
> Cheers,
>
Though obviously not the sole authority, it should be noted that the
Newswatcher-derived news clients on the Mac, as well as such reference
sites as <http://www.podsites.com/style.cfm#emphasis> list slashes as
the Usenet text-only convention to bound italicized text, underscores
to indicate bound text, and asterisks to bound bolded text.
Whatever typographical meaning they might have for the reader is left
undeclared...what is stated in these locations are the conventions
adopted in Usenet antiquity indicated text stylization.
As Michelle states, underscores were adopted in "typewriter" days to
indicate text that should be italicized when typeset...what is left
unstated is that typographers using this convention lacked a way to
state that text should actually be underlined in its presentation. That
convention, however, is not necessarily germane to a discussion of
Usenet conventions -- Usenet and publishing are different "worlds."
A quick Google search for "Usenet posting conventions" returns a number
of sites giving discussion of top- vs bottom-posting, text stylization
conventions, quoting, and so forth.
When I started prowling Usenet (over 20 years ago), access was through
mainframes and many (most?) sysadmins made sure you understood
"netiquette" before you were given posting privileges (i.e. you started
out in a "read-only" state). When AOL broke the floodgates, giving
anybody so inclined access to the newsgroups, things started to go to
.... The upside of unfettered access is considerably more content (and
more diverse content). The downsides include a breakdown of structure,
lack of civility (even the "flamewars" of old were more literate and
readable than what appears today in threads such as this one).
There's no turning back the clock to those simpler days, but Usenet is
still a text-based medium and text conventions that have worked for a
quarter century (or more) probably shouldn't be displaced so long as it
remains a textual medium.
--
Spenser
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|