Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

From this question on SU;

Notice the u in chromium isn't italic, as it should be, given the situation. However, you can't do someth*in*g like that (although the prettify box says you can), so do we need something like

*Ch*romi[blank]*u*[blank]m

to allow such a string to be posted?

share|improve this question
up vote 9 down vote accepted

Just use the <i> tag: <i>Ch</i>romi<i>u</i>m -> Chromium


Ok, if you really want your blank, use a zero-width space. It's Unicode char 0x200B, and you can use it like this: Chromi&#x200B;*u*&#x200B;m -> Chromi​u​m

(or, like this... Chromi​*u*​m -> Chromi​u​m - though this doesn't make a good demo, since by definition the character doesn't show up!)

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for solving this problem, but it'd still be nice to have a blk tag, or some such thing. – Phoshi Oct 24 '09 at 22:40

No.

markdown.pl (the reference implementation of Markdown) supports intra-word-empasis, without the magical blank character you propose:

$ echo "Ex*amp*le" | perl markdown.pl
<p>Ex<em>amp</em>le</p>

This is disabled in the stackoverflow version of markdown because it's annoying more often than not.. You are very few cases where you want my_example_variable to display as myexamplevariable, instead of my_example_variable

If you really want intra-word emphasis, just use the relevant HTML tags as Shog9 suggested:

<i>Ch</i>romi<i>u</i>m

I really recommend against using the unicode zero-width-space character.. The equivalent &#x200B; escape sequence seems reasonable, although it's less obvious and harder to read than simply using the HTML tags.

share|improve this answer
    
I realise WHY the inter-word stuff was disabled, and certainly wouldn't want it back, but I've seen blank characters used to great effect in many places - more powerful markup is never a bad thing, right? – Phoshi Oct 25 '09 at 0:25
    
I don't see much benefit for this new bit of syntax.. The cases where you'd need it are pretty obscure, it would further diverging SO's markdown from "the standard", and there is a perfectly good, very readable alternative, which wouldn't require users to remember another bit of syntax (HTML tags, or &#x200B;) – dbr Oct 25 '09 at 13:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .