From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird#Structured_Text
_ This page was last edited on 20 December 2016
--
Originally posted in eternal-september.test with interesting discussions.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:
This is *bold* text. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

It's OK if used sparingly, not all software displays them as expected,
but people can "see it" in their heads ...
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 10:02:35 +0000, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

If I do that kind of thing, I use Markdown syntax so that I have future options to format it.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 10:02, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

I can see it rendered as such in gnus on emacs.

'Andreas
--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2/21/26 03:02, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird#Structured_Text
_ This page was last edited on 20 December 2016

I use it, but I'm an old-timer.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2026-02-21, Erin <erin@home.invalid> wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

I'm reading this with slrn. It showed your *bold text* in blue,
your /italic/ in pink, but otherwise unchanged. Your _underlined_
text, however, was shown in cyan and underlined.

Whether the colours show or not, it is a nice way to add emphasis
to plain-text messages - if used judiciously, of course.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Erin wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

The colors show up in slrn.

The various levels of quoting also show up in different colors and
in normal vs boldface in slrn.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird#Structured_Text

_ This page was last edited on 20 December 2016

--
Touch tone phones only.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Erin <erin@home.invalid> wrote or quoted:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:
This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Looks like the major plain text specs, say Markdown and ReStructured
Text, all swear by the asterisk "*" for italics. That is an abomina-
tion! For the language I am cooking up I stick with "/" for italics
- naturally.

Actually, this post was already formatted by my own markup system,
which did the paragraph wrapping and English hyphenation for plain
text.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 10:02:35 -0000 (UTC), Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-

_Thunderbird#Structured_Text

_ This page was last edited on 20 December 2016

It displays as expected in Pan. I sometimes use *emphasis* but not italic
or underline.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> writes:

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 10:02, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

I can see it rendered as such in gnus on emacs.

Interesting. I use gnus, and I see Erin's line with asterisks, slashes, and underscores...
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2026-02-21, Stefan Ram wrote:

Erin <erin@home.invalid> wrote or quoted:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:
This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

Looks like the major plain text specs, say Markdown and ReStructured
Text, all swear by the asterisk "*" for italics. That is an abomina-
tion! For the language I am cooking up I stick with "/" for italics
- naturally.

When is that? Could it be that it's really interpreting * as "emphasis"
and rendering as italic for print? Or is it also rendering it as italic
for on-screen display?

(Maybe these days of higher resolution make italic on screen more
usable, say, like maybe serif fonts might be now acceptable on some sort
of high-resolution displays?)

Actually, this post was already formatted by my own markup system,
which did the paragraph wrapping and English hyphenation for plain
text.

--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:

On 2026-02-21, Stefan Ram wrote:

Looks like the major plain text specs, say Markdown and ReStructured
Text, all swear by the asterisk "*" for italics. That is an abomina-
tion! For the language I am cooking up I stick with "/" for italics
- naturally.

When is that? Could it be that it's really interpreting * as "emphasis"
and rendering as italic for print? Or is it also rendering it as italic
for on-screen display?

The Markdown specification by John Gruber says,

|Markdown treats asterisks (*) and underscores (_) as
|indicators of emphasis. Text wrapped with one * or _ will be
|wrapped with an HTML <em> tag; double *rCOs or _rCOs will be
|wrapped with an HTML <strong> tag.
|
Markdown specification by John Gruber.

The HTML em element type usually is mapped to an italic typeface.
So, in that sense, "*" is mapped to italics by Markdown.

The thing is, "/" is slanted exactly like italic type is slanted,
so "/" naturally represents italics.

Italics is /passive markup/ (it does not attract the eye).
The slash "/" has the weight of a letter, so it's passive
too. One more reason to link it to italics.

The "*" is a heavier thing, it has more black to attract
the eye, so it naturally links to a bold typeface
(an active markup which attracts the eye). It is a bold
symbol. Therefore it is a natural symbol for a bold typeface.

Italic text and bold text both are kinds of emphasis.
(HTML got that wrong using "em" specifically for italics
in a misguided attempt to appear "semantic".) Italic text
is /passive emphasis/ (emphasize, but do not attract the eye),
bold text is /active emphasis/ (emphasize and attract the eye).

So, "/" is natural for italics and "*" for boldface.
And that's the way it is and was always used in Usenet.

(Maybe these days of higher resolution make italic on screen more
usable, say, like maybe serif fonts might be now acceptable on some sort
of high-resolution displays?)

I think today many displays have enough resolution for italics
and serifs.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Chris Ahlstrom wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS:

Erin wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

The colors show up in slrn.

The various levels of quoting also show up in different colors and
in normal vs boldface in slrn.

Also you can configure the colors of various elements.

Or was this always only a thing of Netscape Mail & Newsgroups and/or
Mozilla Thunderbird?

https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird#Structured_Text --

Men freely believe that what they wish to desire.
-- Julius Caesar
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 19:21, Rich Alderson wrote:

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> writes:

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 10:02, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

I can see it rendered as such in gnus on emacs.

Interesting. I use gnus, and I see Erin's line with asterisks,
slashes, and underscores...

Maybe it is because of the font? Or I cam see it because I have
mm-decode loaded? I don't know.

'Andreas
--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> writes:

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 19:21, Rich Alderson wrote:

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> writes:

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 10:02, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

I can see it rendered as such in gnus on emacs.

Interesting. I use gnus, and I see Erin's line with asterisks,
slashes, and underscores...

Maybe it is because of the font? Or I cam see it because I have
mm-decode loaded? I don't know.

Perhaps it is the font. I'm using GNUS and I see the italics and underlines but
I see the asterisks around 'bold text'. My default font is bold.
--
Dan Espen
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> writes:

On Sa 21 Feb 2026 at 10:02, Erin wrote:

Do we still use "Structured Text" as in:

This is *bold text*. This is /italic/. This is _underlined_ text.

I can see it rendered as such in gnus on emacs.

'Andreas

I'm in gnus and the italic appears as highlighted. Underlined shows as
green fonted, and bold is bold but surrounded with *

What did you do in gnus to see the formatting?

D
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2