W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [Bug 10838] Make <u> conforming.

From: KangHao Lu (Kenny) <kennyluck@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 02:17:11 +0900
Cc: CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
Message-Id: <594E06FE-F442-4239-AC20-995CFE573067@w3.org>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
Hello Addison,

> One form of East Asian emphasis are emphasis marks, such as Japanese  
> bouten. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-jlreq-20081015/#en-subheading2_3_9
>
> While one might choose to use <i> or <b> tags to indicate this form  
> of emphasis (it is just emphasis, after all), using <u> might be  
> semantically closer. <i> and <b> typically are implemented via an  
> actual variation in the presentation of the text itself. <u> would  
> mean text emphasized with something drawn near it or added to it.  
> This doesn't mean that <i> can't be used to underline text (or  
> otherwise decorate it). But providing <u> does give an element whose  
> semantic meaning is closer to "text-emphasis-style" than <i> or <b>  
> suggest.
> --
>
> Any comments on my use case? Is it a reasonable one? Or is <i> or  
> such really a better choice for this?

I think based on their way of reasoning, they will ask you to use <em>  
here, which I actually agree with. Proper noun marks are supposed to  
be applied on *every* proper noun, so it certainly doesn't have a  
meaning of emphasis. Of course there might be other arguments such as  
using <em> is not intuitive, but I doubt how convincing it is.

The use cases for <u> might be those existing old rules about using  
underline in typography, such as you use underline in manuscripts for  
texts to be italicized (I leaned this yesterday). I do think their  
might be other weird rules around the world as weird as this proper  
noun mark. If you do have any other example, that should be brought up.

I have to say I am not a fan of <u> either. What makes me  
uncomfortable is the inconsistency I sense here and I rather want all  
<i> <b> <u> to get to the status of "Obsolete but conforming"  
altogether. The editor claims that now <i> gets new semantics (the  
meaning of alternate mood or voice), but he includes ship name as an  
example, and I don't think you would pronounce a ship name in an  
alternative mood or voice (am I wrong here?). Some options here:

- We want <i> <b> <u> to go into "Obsolete but conforming" altogether
- <i> and <b> should remove the meaning of "an offset from the normal  
prose", so use cases such as using <i> for ship names should be  
invalid or at least "Obsolete but conforming"

FYI, in current spen <b><i> have the following definition
<b>
The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset  
from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance, such as  
key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, or other  
spans of text whose typical typographic presentation is boldened.

<i>
The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood,  
or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic  
designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another  
language, a thought, a ship name, or some other prose whose typical  
typographic presentation is italicized.

I think the examples for <i> are not very culturally neutral, and I  
don't think the current description for <b> adds any new semantics to  
it. If listing examples is enough then we can make a list of example  
use of <u> as well.

(Side info: for the proper noun mark use case, fantasai proposed <i>  
and Chinese folks proposed <b> cause they all have the "offset from  
the normal prose" meaning". Well...)

This topic was discussed here two years ago, right?
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 17:17:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 September 2010 17:17:49 GMT