- From: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:41:41 -0000
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > But if some people want [<u>] included, we should focus on finding reasons > why it should be included, rather than why it currently hasn't been > included. I had noticed a new round of messages expressing dissatisfaction with the WHATWG/HTMLWG process. I thought this small issue about <u> would be a neat opportunity to be transparent and show how past decisions had been taken? I searched the [WHATWG list] but didn't find much. Karl's link to the [Wikipedia] entry for "Underline" has some interesting purposes, as does [Simon's] recent e-mail. Simon Pieters wrote: > * 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). Me (Cerbera) using underline in the way Simon describes: <http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=57570#57570> Johan007 using <a href> point at the forum homepage for sample link text: <http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=49010#49010> <http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=49055#49055> This technique means the page has lots of bogus hyperlinks. Underlined text would be preferable from a user's perspective. The forum is using [phpBB]. Underlined text is marked up like this: [[[ <span style="text-decoration: underline;">foo</span> ]]] Which seems no better than this: [[[ <u>foo</u> ]]] The <span style> version uses 49 bytes of markup. <font style> would be identical. The <u> version would use 7 bytes; 85% less each time. An alternative is <span class>. The smallest possible example of that: [[[ <span class="u">foo</span> ]]] This uses 23 bytes of markup. <font class> would be identical. The <u> version would use 70% less markup each time. Simon Pieters wrote: > * To underline text when e.g. converting a printed copy to HTML and > underlining is a specific typographical convention. Legal text citations are an example of this. Authors are already recommended to use <u> for this, for example: <http://www.lib.wsc.ma.edu/legalapa.htm> Example of a WYSIWYG user applying underline to a hyperlink (search for "The UCL Practitioner"): <http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2006/04/cases_citing_le.html> Elsewhere, italic is applied to each side of the " v. " part using <em>: <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1984-present.html> Elsewhere, focus is given more to punctuation and abbreviation norms than to text styling: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/full_toc.htm#3-000> <cite><u> could give these "citation-ness" with underline. For example: [[[ cite u { font-style: normal; } <cite><u>foo vs. bar</u></cite> ]]] (20 bytes of markup. 33 bytes of CSS.) As opposed to: [[[ cite.law { font-style: normal; text-decoration: underline; } <cite class="law">foo vs. bar</cite> ]]] (25 bytes of markup. 65 bytes of CSS.) <cite><u> is 20% less markup each time and 49% less CSS one time than <cite class>. An example of hightlighting parts of speech using underline: <http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm#predicates> This is a common practice amongst school teachers on blackboards and in students' work books. Simon Pieters wrote: > * To indicate hotkeys of menu items, e.g. in a "help" document. An example of someone doing this in 1997 (search for "choose Cascade"): <http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/226/04/5.html> A page where I did this in 2007 (search for "Save files"): <http://projectcerbera.com/ui/windows/royale/> This was just a quick whizz around the web which turned up some interesting uses of <u>. I could do a "Collections of Interesting Phrase Markup" survey, including how people currently do search highlighting. :-) Simon Pieters wrote: > * To mark or highlight something (i.e. same as <m>). (IIRC, Henri > Sivonen > proposed to use <u> instead of <m>.) * Henri Sivonen has proposed [<u> for <m>]. * Simon Pieters has proposed [<b> for <m>]. * Google already does <b> on its result page. * <b> is a more common way to mark text in web pages than underline. * Default styling for <u> may look like a hyperlink to users. * They are all equal in terms of filesize, unless class is needed for different styling. * <u> would avoid <b class> to style search keywords differently from generic bold text. * <m> is a [proposed] new element which "will likely be rewritten or removed from the spec". <b> is narrowly favourable to <u> as a replacement for the proposed <m>, imho. [WHATWG list] <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/> [Wikipedia] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underline> [Simon's] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0293.html> [<u> for <m>] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0167.html> [<b> for <m>] <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2005-July/004443.html> [proposed] <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-m> [phpBB] <http://www.phpbb.com/> -- Ben 'Cerbera' Millard Collections of Interesting Data Tables <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/>
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 19:42:25 UTC