- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:08:19 -0800
- To: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Ben 'Cerbera' Millard wrote: > > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> But if some people want [<u>] included, we should focus on finding >> reasons why it should be included, rather than why it currently >> hasn't been included. > > I had noticed a new round of messages expressing dissatisfaction > with the WHATWG/HTMLWG process. I thought this small issue about <u> > would be a neat opportunity to be transparent and show how past > decisions had been taken? There's probably more information available for things that have been included in the spec vs. things that have not been included. Similarly, there's likely more of a paper trail for issues where there's been actual disagreement on the right thing to do, than for ones that seemed uncontroversial. For both of these reasons I'd guess there's not that much past discussion of <u> to be found. Personally I think <u> should remain conforming, if only to give HTML editing UIs something obvious to insert when the the [U] button is pressed. At the same time, I agree that underlining non-hyperlink text in an HTML document is usually a poor practice. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 29 December 2007 11:08:33 UTC