- From: Charles Hinshaw <charles@everydayrevolution.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:52:19 -0500
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maybe I'm missing something with regards to why the inclusion of an underline element should even be considered. The arguments that I have seen still mistake the the visual display of an element with the meaning of that element - confusing underlinedness (which has no meaning) with meaningful elements that whose meanings are conveyed visually through underlines. As an example, I don't think that you could even claim that "<cite><u>" and "<cite class="law">" mean the same thing. They both communicate that they are citations. The first stops there. The second also communicates that it is a legal citation. Ben Millard was right to point out that <cite><u> contains 20% less markup. What he failed to point out is that it also contains less meaning. But that is my observation on this... perhaps I'm missing something? Charles Hinshaw
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 20:52:39 UTC