Re: ISSUE-144 (conforming-u): Chairs Solicit Proposals

> The first is as the proper name mark in Chinese. Based on my research, it
> seems this is actually quite rare, and equivalent more to Western
> typographic conventions such as overlines on recurring decimals. As such,
> it seems like a use case already handled by U+0332,
This is simply not the case. The proper noun mark has to be a single 
line on multiple characters.
> [...]
>
> Also, the CP implies that the definitions of<b>,<i>,<s>, and<small>
> in HTML now are in bad faith -- that they are definitions intended to
> cover an embarassment; maybe an excuse for allowing elements under a
> pretext different than the actual rationale.
After carefully reading the current draft, I am pretty willing to use 
<s> and <small>, hence I suggested "This section is non-normative" 
should be <small> in the CP, certainly not <i>. But this also shows the 
point, the current definition indeed creates an excuse for allowing <i> 
under a different pretext.
> [...] It's possible that the definitions need some tightening up, as
> the CP suggests, but to that end I would recommend that people file bugs
> on the offending ambiguities.
I can see that making <i> only mean just "technical term" as a way to 
go. I have no idea about <b>. It would be helpful to see real world 
examples on how <i> and <b> are styled differently from italics and 
bold. The current spec text "alternative voices" and "offset text" are 
just too close to "styled element."
> I urge the proponents of this CP to consider why their arguments do not
> apply to<font>,<big>,<layer>,<blink>,<tt>,<center>, align="", etc,
> or if they do, to be consistent in their proposal and reintroduce all
> these elements.
I maintain that <b> <i> and <u> should have similar status. Normal 
people find it surprising that <b> and <i> are there given that this 
version of HTML is advertised as a semantic markup language. What was 
the rationale of redefining <b> and <i> instead of making them obsolete?

Cheers,
Kenny