Comment 21 for bug 239854

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 02:16:31PM -0000, Jaap Karssenberg wrote:
> Thinking this over I think I have to revert my previous view point on
> this. So far little has developed that makes use of treating formatting
> as a functional markup in zim. So may as well go the way users expect
> the tool to work and allow some combinations. But need to come up with a
> bit formal definition of what is allowed.

I really like this descision!

> Would say that headings and verbatim remain functional, so are not
> allowed to combine with other formats.
>
> Emphasis and strong would be renamed back to bold and italic. Mark
> remains as-is because I can not convert it to proper underline without
> breaking existing notebooks.
>
> Strike, mark, bold, Italic, sub- super- script and links should be
> allowed to combine. Order of precedence (when needed) as listed in the
> previous sentence.
>
> I would like to put a restriction on links that they can only have a
> single format for the whole link. This in order to avoid breaking a link
> when formatting is applied to only part of it.

these rules make sense, but I would make an exception for the strike
format. I think it should be possible to apply strike to every text
element of a page, including verbatim and headings, without changing the
format (besides font colour). And if the strike format is removed, the
previous format should be dispayed again, so that nothing changes, when
strike format is toggled.

I use the strike format quite often in zim, to "remove" finished tasks
or old information. From time to time, "old information" becomes
important again, and then it is cumbersome so reapply all previous
formats.

what do you think?

best regards,

 Stefan