W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2011

(unknown charset) Re: Objection to HTMLWG ISSUE-144 Change Proposal #2 (keep u non-conforming)

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:09:09 +0200
To: (unknown charset) www-archive@w3.org
Cc: (unknown charset) Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <20110406040909962016.114ebe02@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Some more data the Chairs might want to look at these data (as well as 
the other letters that were posted before this one, on this list):

* First, about the much cited claimed confusion with links, I found in 
a style manual for print text this: "Do not underline URLs in printed 
text." [0] And as for links in text runs, they often become footnotes 
marks, which point to a footnote with the URLs inside. 

Then, some data regarding chinese underline text:

* The most common (protestant) Bible in Chinese uses underlining
   - or 'proper name mark' as it is called. [1]
  # Online example of the bible is available. [2] The online bible
  # is published with a transitional doctype, where <u> is 
    valid. But they still uses <span>. (May be because it seems to 
    be generated from a Microsoft word processor ...)
  # In my book, by not using <u>, a text browser like W3M
    fails to underline the words which the author wanted to be
    underlined, since W3M supports <u> but not (enough) CSS. W3M 
    does not underline links except when the pointer is on the link,
    so there is no confusion that way.
  # That is: the page could have restyled <u>. If HTML5 describes
    <u> in more general terms, then there is better chance that 
    authors would think of restyling it.
* Proper name mark is described in Wikipedia. [3] (Not the same link
  as the one in the change proposal!) I note that Wikipedia says: 
  # that proper name mark is also used in subtitles (<track>?)
  # that there is also proper _noun_ mark, which seems to be the 
    same mark, but sometimes they want to distinguish them
  # in fact there are 4 "underline-like" punctuations:
    1. proper _noun_ mark,  [4]
    2. wavy book title mark, [4]
    3. and emphasis mark [dots under each sign] [4]
    +  proper _name_ mark [3] (may be same as "proper noun mark")
  # the underline styles  ]] rotate and shift to the left side 
    of the text in vertical script (shifting to the right side
    of the text is also possible, but" [[
  # it is also mentioned that proper name mark and proper noun
    mark sometimes stylized to be different. (thus, otherwise, 
    I suppose they are the same)
* It seems one wants to use bottom-border rather than the 
  native underline of <u>. This makes sense also from another
  point of view: if the text runs vertically, then one will
  underline the right left side = border. (The CSS property
  text-decoration:underline probably doesn't shift to the
  left.) (Though vertical text online is yet an unsolved problem,
  on the Web, I believe.)

I find it unfair to describe the chinese use case as minor use case. 
The Bible is not a minor use case. Subtitles is also a something which 
few _do_, but which many _read_. Etc. But of course, there seems to be 
many things that needs to be taken care of if Chinese 
punctuation/stylistics is supposed to be brought online. Underlining of 
nouns is but one thing.

[0] www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/House-style-2.pdf
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Union_Version
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_punctuation#Typographic_styles
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_punctuation#

Leif Halvard Silli, Tue, 5 Apr 2011 04:56:04 +0200:
> From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:51:20 +0000 (UTC)
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 02:09:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:46 UTC