On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:12:57AM -0700, Angus Leeming wrote: > Martin Vermeer wrote: > > (But, what this implementation gets wrong is that is does not > > distinguish the situations > > \emph{aaa \emph{bbb} ccc} > > and > > \emph{aaa} bbb \emph{ccc} > > which are visually identical but logically _vastly_ different) > > Hmmmmm. If a double negative is a positive, shouldn't a double positive be a > negative?
Hmmm... what I find amusing is our sawing back and forth on this in some previous threads, where our routine assumption was that we wanted to 'un-emph' something inside existing emphasis. And now it turns out that, while doing so is a little more legwork in the inset paradigm, the alternative semantic 'emph-within-emph' cannot even be unambiguously expressed in the ranges paradigm, whereas it is trivial for insets... perhaps I also should have gone to bed at the proper time ;-/ > Angus. Time for bed. It's been an exciting day for an expat Brit ;-) > (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7030422.stm) Poor you. Sweet dreams! - Martin