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

Re: Underline element.

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:56:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4775009A.8050109@splintered.co.uk>
To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

Simon Pieters wrote:

>> * Widely considered to be presentational, not semantic.
> So are <b> and <i>.

Won't get an argument from me there, although removing <i> may then 
require addition of other more specific markup elements to denote things 
like names of ships, which traditionally have been visually presented in 

>   * To indicate importance (i.e. same as <strong>).

If it's same as <strong> or <em>, then shouldn't <strong> or <em> be 
used and simply styled to appear visually as underlined text?

>   * To underline text when e.g. converting a printed copy to HTML and
>     underlining is a specific typographical convention.

Same as above. In printed copy, underlining is used to emphasise a 
certain word/passage. So, shouldn't it be <strong> or <em>, with 
appropriate css?

>   * To indicate hotkeys of menu items, e.g. in a "help" document.

If it's to show the hotkeys of actual live items, should it be the UA's 
responsibility to highlight these, based on @accesskey assignment (as 
per other discussion)? If it's a "static" help document, could it be 
considered pure presentation, and handled with spans instead?

>   * To mark or highlight something (i.e. same as <m>). (IIRC, Henri Sivonen
>     proposed to use <u> instead of <m>.)

Again, if it's the same as <m>, should <m> not be used and styled 

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 13:56:59 UTC

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