tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed ([Redacted])

Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1962)

Ilya Nikokoshev — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:07:32 -0800

It's customary to use the [sarcasm on] and [sarcasm off] indicators.

(serious but not well-written advice edited out) But Andrew is right: if there is any doubt about the quality of the joke, it's better not post it at all; and underlining isn't going to change this. And on MO, better doubt all jokes.

Andrew Stacey comments on "[Redacted]" (1961)

Andrew Stacey — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:01:16 -0800

@Harry: that's yet another reason never to underline text. If people don't recognise sarcasm when they see it, no amount of underlining is going to help them.

Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1960)

Ilya Nikokoshev — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:48:07 -0800

@Harry, there are >10 million results for not recommended to underline text that is not a link, see e.g. a general explanation at Underline links that are not otherwise identifiable as links.

Mariano comments on "[Redacted]" (1951)

Mariano — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:09:06 -0800

If you want underlining to express sarcasm, maybe it would be best for you to simply not underline?

Underlining has always been frowned upon.

Harald Hanche-Olsen comments on "[Redacted]" (1947)

Harald Hanche-Olsen — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:37:14 -0800

And anyway, underlining for emphasis is a relic of the typewriter age and should never be used in modern typography. The sole exception I am aware of is certain kind of legal documents, where underlining is required by law.

Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1932)

Ilya Nikokoshev — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:28:49 -0800

One more thing you can do is to use backticks: they escape stuff and apply some monospace font which can be changed in the CSS. But it's generally better to stick to a few types of emphasis rather then many :)

Ilya Nikokoshev comments on "[Redacted]" (1929)

Ilya Nikokoshev — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:22:29 -0800

You shouldn't underline text: in the past 10 years this behavior is reserved for hyperlinks.

Dylan Moreland comments on "[Redacted]" (1927)

Dylan Moreland — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:42:52 -0800

The expression $\underline{\operatorname{Hom}}$ seems to do what you want, at least in my preview window.

Anton Geraschenko comments on "[Redacted]" (1925)

Anton Geraschenko — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:09:57 -0800

Apparently there's no way to do it. Markdown doesn't support underlining and isn't a supported tag. You can post a request on meta.SE if you really want to be able to underline.

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (1924)

Harry Gindi — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:54:56 -0800