> Because these are fundamentally different concepts (I keep repeating myself).
I do not think \textit and \em are 'fundamentally different'. \textit/\em and CharStyle Emph are. The former are all 'plain latex command', the latter can be any latex command. This is obviously different from what JMarc thinks <quote> But there are two different things: * semantic vs explicit marking * font-like extent versus inset. The first one is the one that counts. The second one is an implementation issue. </quote> >From a user's point of view, the former is mapped to some latex command that is NOT configurable. The later is some complicated inset that provides flexibility at a cost of usability. It would be more naturally to put \textbf along with \em, than to put \strong (leads to a scary inset) along with \em (which simply makes your text italic). > They have only > buttons for physical markup in the toolbars, namely bold, underline, italics > (and sometimes small caps). We have *none* of those buttons in our toolbar, > so if we are going to go that way, we have to go it to the end. You tried really hard to differentiate \textit and \em and tried to convince me your toolbar buttons are *not* italics and underline in word's sense. My view is different. See above. Bo
