W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-di@w3.org > September 2005

RE: Web page layouts in different cultures - question from DIWG

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:31:52 +0100
To: "'Addison Phillips'" <addison.phillips@quest.com>, "'Rotan Hanrahan'" <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>
Cc: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, <www-di@w3.org>, <member-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050924173201.113F14F1B1@homer.w3.org>

> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison.phillips@quest.com] 
> Sent: 22 September 2005 17:30

> Generally one would not underline CJK text, for example, and 
> one would use various external markup or variations in size 
> and style (in traditional layout) to indicate emphasis. User 
> agents have never, to my knowledge, supported traditional CJK 
> text emphasis, so content on the Web has adapted (as have 
> users). That doesn't mean that the other tradition doesn't 
> exist. It also might not mean that DIWG can/should do 
> anything about it, per-se (users expect underlines).

This may be straying slightly from Rotan's question about underlining of
links, but note that CSS3 Text currently proposes support for wakiten-type
emphasis (dots over ideographic characters to provide emphasis).

Note also that I'm not so sure about "Generally one would not underline CJK
text".  When I worked on user interfaces with Fuji Xerox they did often
underline text rather than bold or italicise it. Underlining ideographic
text increases line height, since it runs below the characters, rather than
through descenders.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
Received on Saturday, 24 September 2005 17:32:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Saturday, 24 September 2005 17:32:10 GMT