- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:45:10 +0100
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Ben 'Cerbera' Millard" <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:21:34 +0100, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > I'm not exactly sure, but there are many reasons that <u> has not been > included. > > * Lack of use cases for it. Perhaps. > * Widely considered to be presentational, not semantic. So are <b> and <i>. > * Redundant, use CSS instead (or <ins>, if the underline is for > indicating inserted text). Same for <b> and <i>. > * Was already deprecated in HTML4. I thought HTML5 started from a clean slate and included stuff based on use-cases, not based on what was in HTML4. :-) > But if some people want it included, we should focus on finding reasons > why it should be included, rather than why it currently hasn't been > included. Some use-cases off the top of my head: * To indicate importance (i.e. same as <strong>). * To indicate which part of the text would be link text in a sample (I've seen this in fora when discussing link text, for instance). An <a> without href could be more "semantically correct" but its default presentation in current browsers is identical to normal text, so doens't really work in practice. * To underline text when e.g. converting a printed copy to HTML and underlining is a specific typographical convention. * To indicate hotkeys of menu items, e.g. in a "help" document. * To mark or highlight something (i.e. same as <m>). (IIRC, Henri Sivonen proposed to use <u> instead of <m>.) -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 13:46:26 UTC