Mar 22, 17 / Ari 25, 01 17:00 UTC
Feature Request: underline ¶
Hope I'm not wrong but... I saw we can use **BOLD** for BOLD, the same as __BOLD__: why not using __ for underline instead?
I feel the need of having italic, bold, AND underline too.
Mar 22, 17 / Ari 25, 01 17:00 UTC
Hope I'm not wrong but... I saw we can use **BOLD** for BOLD, the same as __BOLD__: why not using __ for underline instead?
I feel the need of having italic, bold, AND underline too.
Mar 22, 17 / Ari 25, 01 17:28 UTC
I am not disagreeing, but I will point out that it might make things more difficult to tell between a link and an underline.
Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 03:26 UTC
Markdown knows no kind of underlining, but HTML does and it is not filtered
Markdown knows no kind of <u>underlining</u>, but HTML does and it is <u>*not filtered*</u>.
So, what you do request, actually exists already.
Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 06:42 UTC
I just wrote a Guide of available formatting options, take a look: https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/welcome-127/topic/codex-circumscripto-the-total-formatting-guide-4457/#asgardia:layout-posts
Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 14:28 UTC
Thank you @nihylum de to have pointed me to your impressive guide. It's far more complete than I even need: I promise to @Phicksur I'll use underline only. :-)
(this message apart X-D)
P.S.
Isn't it dangerous to have unfiltered HTML? I mean... who knows a little javascript can do everything to your browser, if that's unprotected against scripts (ref. injection).