W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-144 conforming-u by Amicable Resolution

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:05:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1103262257330.25791@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 07:42 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > The current status for this issue:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/144
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-144
> > 
> > - We have a change proposal to make <u> conforming:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/UShouldBeConforming
> > 
> > At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit any other alternate
> > Change Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details),
> > in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different
> > change than the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
> > 
> > If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by March
> > 25th, 2011, we will proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have
> > received to date.
> 
> As we have received no counter-proposals or alternate proposals, the 
> chairs are issuing a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have.  
> If no objections are raised to this call by April 2st 2011, we will 
> direct the editor to make the proposed change.  If anybody would like to 
> raise an objection during this time, we strongly encourage them to 
> accompany their objection with a concrete and complete change proposal.

There's a CCP for <u> here:

   http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Change_Proposal_for_ISSUE-144

Looks like nobody ever sent it in though.

Since it's short I've included it below. I support this CCP, though I am 
not its primary author (I contributed parts).

SUMMARY
There is no new use cases addressed by the <u> element.

RATIONALE
All the reasons a human author might have to use <u> already have more 
appropriate elements, except the two cases given in the CP. They are both 
too rare on the Web to be considered valid use cases.

If we were to address the use case of content generated by an authoring 
agent, the same argument should be applied to <font>, <big>, <layer>, 
<blink>, <tt>, <center>, align="", etc, yet nobody is making such a case, 
suggesting that this rationale is not being consistently applied. 
Inconsistent application of rationales leads to very poor language design, 
confusing authors ("why is X possible but not the almost identical Y?" 
is a common question in such cases).

An underlined text which is not a hyperlink confuses the user in his/her 
browsing experience.

DETAILS
No change.

IMPACT
Authors will have to use appropriate semantic markup for applying 
underlines. (e.g. <ins> for insertion, <em> for emphasis, etc.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 23:05:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT