- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:44:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11915
Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |webmaster@keryx.se
Summary|Suggestion: Instead of |Suggestion: Instead of
|forbidding <u> and |forbidding <u> and
|inventing <mark> you could |inventing <mark> you could
|as well redefine <u> to be |as well redefine <u> to be
|what <mark> is intended for |what <mark> is intended for
|-- roughly the same idea as |-- roughly the same idea as
|for <i> and <b>. Clearly |for <i> and <b>. Clearly
|not all old HTML4 <i> / <b> |not all old HTML4 <i> / <b>
|/ <u> match what the new |/ <u> match what the new
|HTML5 <i> / <b> / <mark> |HTML5 <i> / <b> / <mark>
--- Comment #1 from Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> 2011-01-30 18:44:50 UTC ---
There is a huge diffeence between <mark> and <u> and that is default styling.
Underlined text that is not a link is a big usability problem. As a teacher
this proposal will be burdensome.
Yes, <u> used to mean underline but now it means "mark", but in order to use it
without deteriorating usability you MUST remove that styling. Thus, you have an
element that sounds like it underlines, but should not use it for that. And it
will validate, not giving authors a chance to catch bad usage, i.e. when it IS
being used for the underline effect, that should be done in CSS.
The web teacher in me cries NO, when I read this proposal.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 18:44:52 UTC