W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Underline element.

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:45:10 +0100
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Ben 'Cerbera' Millard" <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t31shkc2idj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:21:34 +0100, Lachlan Hunt  
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:

> I'm not exactly sure, but there are many reasons that <u> has not been  
> included.
> * Lack of use cases for it.


> * Widely considered to be presentational, not semantic.

So are <b> and <i>.

> * Redundant, use CSS instead (or <ins>, if the underline is for
>    indicating inserted text).

Same for <b> and <i>.

> * Was already deprecated in HTML4.

I thought HTML5 started from a clean slate and included stuff based on  
use-cases, not based on what was in HTML4. :-)

> But if some people want it included, we should focus on finding reasons  
> why it should be included, rather than why it currently hasn't been  
> included.

Some use-cases off the top of my head:

   * To indicate importance (i.e. same as <strong>).
   * To indicate which part of the text would be link text in a sample  
(I've seen
     this in fora when discussing link text, for instance). An <a> without  
     could be more "semantically correct" but its default presentation in  
     browsers is identical to normal text, so doens't really work in  
   * To underline text when e.g. converting a printed copy to HTML and
     underlining is a specific typographical convention.
   * To indicate hotkeys of menu items, e.g. in a "help" document.
   * To mark or highlight something (i.e. same as <m>). (IIRC, Henri Sivonen
     proposed to use <u> instead of <m>.)

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 13:46:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC