Re: [O] unintended strike-through in table

[Gustav Wikström]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Skip,

Skip Collins <address@hidden> writes:

> I see little reason to continue to support +strike-through+ text.
> Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deprecate stricken text and
> disable it by default, allowing for an option to turn it on for
> backward compatibility.

I agree.  If no one object, I will make this change soon.

Although I cannot recall myself having used strike-through text I wonder what the reason is for removing the functionality? Is it just this, that it (probably) isn't used much? Not a good argument in my book (especially due to the uncertainty in usage). Would it not be better to fix the problem at hand? Maybe by changing the symbol since + seems overloaded, would not - be a better choice?

On a side-note, what is the intended behavior of bold, italic, strike-through etc. regarding line-breaks? Since a single long line has the same meaning in org as multiple consecutive short lines I think the markup-elements above also should support multiple lines of text (but not be valid between paragraphs)

Regards Gustav