Render EM as underline [was: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar]

Terje Norderhaug (Terje@in-Progress.com)
Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:44:10 -0700


Message-Id: <ae25ab43030210040174@[199.106.6.97]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:44:10 -0700
To: Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>, www-html@w3.org
From: Terje@in-Progress.com (Terje Norderhaug)
Subject: Render EM as underline [was: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar]

At 3:44 PM 7/31/96, Charles Peyton Taylor wrote:
>>>> Arne Knudson <ack@ebt.com> 07/31/96 10:36am
>>>
>> I fail to see that reasoning behind re-incorporating the deprecated font
>> tags, like <U>, back into the DTDs. I thought that way back during the
>> HTML 2.0 draft discussions, it was decided that <U> was rather evil,
>> because somany browsers used underline to represent links.
>
>That's a browser-implementation problem.  I've been using
><U>, and in MSIE and Mosaic it improves the appearance of
>documents.
>
>Only using bold and italics gets less meaningful (because
>the appearance is used for EM and STRONG) and downright
>boring.

I suggest to resolve the issue by that the guidelines for how a browser
should render the EM element is changed from advising italics to advising
that the EM is rendered with underline.

Italics fonts doesn't display very well on screen anyway, and makes text
harder to read (if readbable at all). Rendering EM with italics also mixes
with the common rendering of citations. By not providing U but rather
suggest underline for EM, it would invite more people to use the logical EM
element with the associated long term advantages.


-- Terje <Terje@in-Progress.com>
   http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/

   Make your Web Site a Social Place with Interaction!
   http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/interaction