On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 04:21:27PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > On 27 November 2016 at 20:27, Gavin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On second thoughts, this is already possible. The best way at the > > moment, I think, to underline text would be to output strings in the > > output like this: > > > > this text isn't underlined UNDERLINE_ONbut this text is.UNDERLINE_OFF > > > > Then after you get, say, the HTML output, search for all instances of > > UNDERLINE_ON (or UNDERLINE_OFF) and change them to <ul> (or </ul>). > > > Thinking again, this isn't necessary because you can just do > @inlineraw{html, <ul>}. I don't know if underlining is possible for > any of the other output formats. but if it were, it would have to be > coded separately for each of them.
Using a macro where the @inline* are put such that it is easy to replace with the @-command name if it makes its way in Texinfo would probably be what I would do. -- Pat
