In an answer to this question, I described my own practice thus:

My practise on ELU has evolved towards this (though I haven’t been altogether consistent):

• Mark technical and foreign terms and ‘mentioned’ words or phrases in italics, as in your example
• Mark literal quotations and longer constructions employed as examples in “double quotes”—this leaves it possible to mark the ‘mentioned’ terms in italics, as before
• Mark allusions and non-standard, colloquial or ironic uses in ‘single quotes’
• Mark rhetorical emphasis with bold or bold italics, depending on typographical context

Quotations, whatever the source, should in my opinion be treated as they are in scholarly works: enclosed in quotation marks within the body of the discourse, or blockquoted if longer; with ellipses explictly noted; and with the original formatting preserved to the extent that the markup/down here permits. I have no objection to bulleted or numbered lists, of any depth which promotes clarity and intelligibility.

I’m not confident, however, that these (or any other) practices should or can be universally enforced. It seems to me that our time is better spent on close attention to content than on meticulous formatting to some arbitrary standard.

In an answer to this question, I described my own practice thus:

My practise on ELU has evolved towards this (though I haven’t been altogether consistent):

• Mark technical and foreign terms and ‘mentioned’ words or phrases in italics, as in your example
• Mark literal quotations and longer constructions employed as examples in “double quotes”—this leaves it possible to mark the ‘mentioned’ terms in italics, as before
• Mark allusions and non-standard, colloquial or ironic uses in ‘single quotes’
• Mark rhetorical emphasis with bold or bold italics, depending on typographical context

Quotations, whatever the source, should in my opinion be treated as they are in scholarly works: enclosed in quotation marks within the body of the discourse, or blockquoted if longer; with ellipses explictly noted; and with the original formatting preserved to the extent that the markup/down here permits. I have no objection to bulleted or numbered lists, of any depth which promotes clarity and intelligibility.

I’m not confident, however, that these (or any other) practices should or can be universally enforced. It seems to me that our time is better spent on close attention to content than on meticulous formatting to some arbitrary standard.