Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #22137 > unrolled thread

formatting doesn't nest

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  formatting doesn't nest "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 21:32 +0100
    Re: formatting doesn't nest Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-10-01 13:53 -0700
      Re: formatting doesn't nest Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-10-01 14:04 -0700
        Re: formatting doesn't nest Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 22:25 +0100
          Re: formatting doesn't nest "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-01 22:36 +0100
          Re: formatting doesn't nest Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 22:40 +0100
          Re: formatting doesn't nest Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-02 09:36 +0100
            Re: formatting doesn't nest Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 09:41 +0100
              Re: formatting doesn't nest "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-10-02 13:14 +0100
    Re: formatting doesn't nest Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-02 09:34 +0100

#22137 — formatting doesn't nest

I just wrote some text #like @this@, only# with slashes instead of @ and
underlines instead of #. Just out of curiosity. The word between slashes
came back italic, but the outer block - including the italic one -
_didn't_ come back underlined.

Not important - I just did it out of curiosity.

(When I say "came back", I mean when I saw my original text in a
returned post; I realise it's Thunderbird that interprets it, not usenet.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The bottleneck is always at the top of the bottle. - Attributed to
Peter Drucker (re management), by @Eric_Partaker 2023-7-14

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#22138

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> formatting doesn't nest

I think Tb calls that structured plaintext; and I'm not surprised that 
it doesn't nest. Or 'stretch' or wrap.

I do see some people call that 'formatting'.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22139

Mike Easter wrote:
> I think Tb calls that structured plaintext;

Whew!  I found it.  It wasn't easy.

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

I knew it was in the m'zine kb, but it was also hard to get that to work 
starting from a conventional search engine.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22140

On 01/10/2026 22:04, Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> I think Tb calls that structured plaintext;
> 
> Whew!  I found it.  It wasn't easy.
> 
> https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird#Structured_Text
> 
> I knew it was in the m'zine kb, but it was also hard to get that to work
> starting from a conventional search engine.

TB does nested structured test, which the mozillazine article doesn't 
mention. The most important thing is that it won't do structured text 
which wraps over two lines.

/_This is structured text_/
which works to show correctly nested italics and underlining

/_This is structured text/_
which does not work because there is no nesting

_This is structured text which continues over more than one line and 
won't be shown as underlined text (on a usual 72 character line)_

If you create a userContent.css file with the single line
.moz-txt-tag { display: none; }
and put it in your profile's Chrome folder, it will show the structured 
text but the _/* will not show, so it looks like ordinary underlined, 
italic, and bolded text.

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22142

On 2026/10/1 22:25:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
[]
> TB does nested structured test, which the mozillazine article doesn't 
> mention. The most important thing is that it won't do structured text 
> which wraps over two lines.

Ah, that's probably why mine didn't work.>
> /_This is structured text_/
> which works to show correctly nested italics and underlining

Except when I read your post, it appeared as underlined text, but not
italicised, with the slashes visible.>
> /_This is structured text/_
> which does not work because there is no nesting

Indeed; I wouldn't have expected that to work.>
> _This is structured text which continues over more than one line and 
> won't be shown as underlined text (on a usual 72 character line)_

As you said earlier. Thanks.>
> If you create a userContent.css file with the single line
> .moz-txt-tag { display: none; }
> and put it in your profile's Chrome folder, it will show the structured 
> text but the _/* will not show, so it looks like ordinary underlined, 
> italic, and bolded text.
> 

Interesting! I asked about that sometime in (I think) the last year, and
at least one person suggested a certain add-on, which I got; I didn't
know it could be done without any add-on.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22143

On 01/10/2026 22:25, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/10/2026 22:04, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> I think Tb calls that structured plaintext;
>>
>> Whew!  I found it.  It wasn't easy.
>>
>> https://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_-_Thunderbird#Structured_Text
>>
>> I knew it was in the m'zine kb, but it was also hard to get that to work
>> starting from a conventional search engine.
> 
> TB does nested structured test, which the mozillazine article doesn't
> mention. The most important thing is that it won't do structured text
> which wraps over two lines.
> 
> /_This is structured text_/
> which works to show correctly nested italics and underlining

Apologies. It doesn't work when the attribute marks are next to each 
other. Try this:

_This is underlined with a word in /italics/ in the middle_
-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22147

Jeff Layman wrote:

> /This is structured text/
> which works to show correctly nested italics and underlining

Actually, it doesn't;  it shows as underlined but not italicised.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22149

On 02/10/2026 09:36, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
> 
>> /This is structured text/
>> which works to show correctly nested italics and underlining
> 
> Actually, it doesn't;  it shows as underlined but not italicised.

Yes, I noticed that after I'd sent it. See my reply to my OP.

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22154

On 2026/10/2 9:41:25, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 02/10/2026 09:36, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>>> /This is structured text/
>>> which works to show correctly nested italics and underlining
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't;  it shows as underlined but not italicised.
> 
> Yes, I noticed that after I'd sent it. See my reply to my OP.
> 
In your original post, it showed as underlined but not italicised, but
with the /s still visible, as you noticed.

In Andy's repost and your reply to him, it was italicised but not
underlined, this time with no characters showing!
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo    # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo  # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22146

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote:

> I just wrote some text #like @this@, only# with slashes instead of @ and
> underlines instead of #. Just out of curiosity. The word between slashes
> came back italic, but the outer block - including the italic one -
> _didn't_ come back underlined.
> 
> Not important - I just did it out of curiosity.
> 
> (When I say "came back", I mean when I saw my original text in a
> returned post; I realise it's Thunderbird that interprets it, not usenet.)

Not every email/usenet client displays emphasised characters like that, 
so it's probably best to keep it simple, for the benefit of people 
having to interpret them in their head ...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web