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 17:59:40 +0200
To: (unknown charset) Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110406175940882682.26d423f6@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:41:46 +0200:
> According to the Wikipedia Underline article, the phrase "Abraham, 
> Sarah" in the Chinese Union Bible's Genesis text [3] should render 
> roughly like this (I removed the comma to make the point clearer):
> 
>   _Abraham_ _Sarah_
> 
> But, actually, the Bible page in question actually does this:
> 
>   _Abraham_Sarah_

Ah, forget that. I only interpreted the Google translation. The Chinese 
text looks to do it correctly, when I count the number or underlinings 
per line.

But ... hm ... Performing the Google translation is interesting: the 
resulting underline, in English, doesn't add meaning. And, I think that 
indicates that <u> is correct - relatively speaking (because I think 
punctuation is 'correctest'). It is relatively speaking correct, 
because, as a visual effect, it would not be incorrect to simply remove 
the style in the English translation. WHereas if the Chinese text had 
used <em>, then the punctuation would have had to carry over. And also, 
according to the 'semantified' <i> of HTML5, it would not have been 
correct to not let the cursive carry over to the English. Whereas for 
<u>, which is non-semantic, it doesn't matter if the underline is 
removed in the translation.

Leif H Silli 
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 16:00:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:35 GMT