dalede said:
> While I applaud user choice there should be
> guidance in what the author intended.
> Bold, italics, font size and even swithing font
> can be a useful mechanism to let the user know
bold and italics are indeed things that the author indicates in z.m.l.
bold is represented with *asterisks*, and italics with _underscores_.
(now you know why i'm always using the underscores in posts.)
of course, the user can exercise an option to change the way that
bold and italics are _rendered_. *bold* might be rendered in red,
and _italics_ might be rendered instead with green underlined text.
the author can also use other characters to indicate special marking;
> $this$might$be$the$signal$to$indicate$computer$cod e.$
> `and`this`might`indicate`a`monospaced`font`should` be`used.`
> can be a useful mechanism to let the user know
> they are now reading a letter, or a sign, or some
> other special effect that needs to be communicated.
a letter or a sign would be set off specifically as a _block_.
here's an example, from the first page of p.g. e-text #22589:
Quote:
The sign said:
~tab~~tab~ JUBILATION, U.S.A.!! ~tab~~tab~
~tab~~tab~ The doggondest, cheeriest ~tab~~tab~
~tab~~tab~ little town in America! ~tab~~tab~
The two aliens smiled at each other. Unaccustomed to oral conversation,
they exchanged thoughts.
|
>
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22589...-h/22589-h.htm
the "~tab~" thingee indicates a tab, just so you can see it there.
in z.m.l., if you have two tabs at the start of a line, and two at the end,
it means that line is supposed to be centered. further, when you have
several such successive lines, it means you've got a _block_... voila!
z.m.l. doesn't know what _kind_ of block it is, and it doesn't really care.
i've built routines that look for certain words in the text around a block,
to ascertain what _kind_ of block, words like "invitation" and "sign" and
"letter" and "note" and "warning" and "figure" and "table" and so on...
and the routines actually work very well, which _amazed_ me at first,
until i realized that authors will _generally_ inform their readers about
something out of the ordinary like this. it's not merely the typography
that indicates what it is, it's the author explicitly _telling_ the reader.
just like the author did in the example above. check it out for yourself,
across a number of books, and you will see that it's actually the case...
so i have no plans to include these routines in my viewer-app presently.
if later on, there arises some _need_ for the program to _identify_ certain
types of blocks, i'll put it in. but for the time being, i don't see that need.
but yeah, good point, and i think i've got that covered well enough...
-bowerbird