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

Re: Underline element.

From: Charles Hinshaw <charles@everydayrevolution.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:52:19 -0500
Message-Id: <F923DA2E-B626-41D9-8A0E-DF9A52396F43@everydayrevolution.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>

Maybe I'm missing something with regards to why the inclusion of an  
underline element should even be considered. The arguments that I  
have seen still mistake the the visual display of an element with the  
meaning of that element - confusing underlinedness (which has no  
meaning) with meaningful elements that whose meanings are conveyed  
visually through underlines.

As an example, I don't think that you could even claim that  
"<cite><u>" and "<cite class="law">" mean the same thing. They both  
communicate that they are citations. The first stops there. The  
second also communicates that it is a legal citation. Ben Millard was  
right to point out that <cite><u> contains 20% less markup. What he  
failed to point out is that it also contains less meaning.

But that is my observation on this... perhaps I'm missing something?

Charles Hinshaw
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 20:52:39 UTC

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