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

Re: Underline element.

From: Ivan Enderlin <w3c@hoa-project.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:17:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4778B399.8070908@hoa-project.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli a écrit :
> If I want a header element with underlined text, then 
> <h1><u>subject</u></h1> does not add any semantic mess. It adds code 
> mess, but not semantic mess.
Nevertheless, in this case, we should use <h1>subject</h1> and 
underlined element (header) with a style sheet. Code is clarified, and 
it not adds semantic mess. Furthermore, it provides a coherence in the 
whole document presentation.
> However, if I use <h1>the <u>main</u> subject</h1>, then I might add 
> semantic mess, at least if I use <U> when I really should have used 
> <EM>. On the other side, to use <h1><em>subject</em></h1> is also 
> messy and - possibly - also semantically messy (I guess it could 
> create problems for screen reader UAs).
Using <h1>the <em>main</em> subject</h1> is (imho) more semantically 
correct. “main” should be emphasized, because it's important, whereas 
“the” and “subject” should inherited of <h1> style, /i.e./ underlined 
(if we considere our previous example). Note we might used <strong> 
instead of <em>, but both are correct I think (semantically speaking). 
It's good as much textual broswers (e.g. Lynx), than graphic broswers 
(with or without CSS activated).

If CSS is turned-off, broswer assure presentation with default styles, 
e.g. <em> is often italic. It's always correct, and we didn't add code mess.
> For [author] the use of FONT usually makes - or made - the coding job 
> a burden.
That's why we (not me aye ;-)) created CSS hehe. Document are more 
maintainable, semantic is respected, code is lighten etc. It's not a 
danger (as you mentionned). HTML is the document structure, a skeleton, 
whereas CSS "style", add skin to the document. If CSS is turned-off, 
then it's broswer that should provided a coherence between different 
tags, in case of graphic broswer.
> In conclusion, I don't think that I am in favour of removing* U from 
> HTML, but rather would I like to see that its usecases is specified 
> better.
I always have my back between two chairs (french expression ;-)). I 
don't find a sense to <u> and, above all, an importance to keep <u> tag. 
I have some ideas, like <u> tag should be a necessity for e.g. e-mail. 
But it's not suffisant. Underlined a part of text doesn't have sense in 
occidental language, but I don't know what it means for the rest of the 
world. Maybe, in definitive, we might keep <u> from HTML, but in 
depreciated status, or with a notice explain the dilemma.
HTML 5 must be a new clean HTML, and not get HTML 4 old heritage (I hear 
by old heritage, all these depreciated tags).


Regards,
-Ivan
Received on Monday, 31 December 2007 09:17:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:11 GMT