Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.
> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:11:13 -0400 > From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]> > Of course in books and such bold typefaces are an option, but in any > medium where bolding and such isn't an option, such as text or text > converted to HTML by one of those auto-HTML converter programs just so > they can be viewed by people who don't want to leave their browser, I > don't see how the order is unimportant. I say it above, the differnce > between "a," and "a", is the difference between a sucessful program or > not. You are not listening. I keep saying that the traditional English order is better in typeset material, where there are no quotes around variable names and similar. I am not expressing an opinion about the proper order in single-font text where you might be forced to use quotes for that as well. Please elucidate for me why you think you would have to use the same quoting convention for variable names in single-font technical text as for quoted speech in typeset English narrative text. A properly markedup text will (in its internal format) have something like <quote></quote> and <code></code> to mark the two different uses. But I repeat, the two uses do not belong in in the same piece of text anyway. If we mix them just for fun, the internal form <quote>I wrote <code>foo</code>,</quote> he said, <quote>but the compiler thought it said <code>bar</code>.</quote> could be shown as "I wrote 'foo'," he said, "but the computer thought it said 'bar'." in the dumbed-down ASCII version, or as proper proportional text with bold foo and bar, and quotation marks turned this way and that. (And since you don't want the comma and stop to be bold in the typeset version, that would actually be the right markup to use). Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <[log in to unmask]> (Humour NOT marked)