- From: Ivan Enderlin <w3c@hoa-project.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:17:13 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4778B399.8070908@hoa-project.net>
Leif Halvard Silli a écrit : > If I want a header element with underlined text, then > <h1><u>subject</u></h1> does not add any semantic mess. It adds code > mess, but not semantic mess. Nevertheless, in this case, we should use <h1>subject</h1> and underlined element (header) with a style sheet. Code is clarified, and it not adds semantic mess. Furthermore, it provides a coherence in the whole document presentation. > However, if I use <h1>the <u>main</u> subject</h1>, then I might add > semantic mess, at least if I use <U> when I really should have used > <EM>. On the other side, to use <h1><em>subject</em></h1> is also > messy and - possibly - also semantically messy (I guess it could > create problems for screen reader UAs). Using <h1>the <em>main</em> subject</h1> is (imho) more semantically correct. “main” should be emphasized, because it's important, whereas “the” and “subject” should inherited of <h1> style, /i.e./ underlined (if we considere our previous example). Note we might used <strong> instead of <em>, but both are correct I think (semantically speaking). It's good as much textual broswers (e.g. Lynx), than graphic broswers (with or without CSS activated). If CSS is turned-off, broswer assure presentation with default styles, e.g. <em> is often italic. It's always correct, and we didn't add code mess. > For [author] the use of FONT usually makes - or made - the coding job > a burden. That's why we (not me aye ;-)) created CSS hehe. Document are more maintainable, semantic is respected, code is lighten etc. It's not a danger (as you mentionned). HTML is the document structure, a skeleton, whereas CSS "style", add skin to the document. If CSS is turned-off, then it's broswer that should provided a coherence between different tags, in case of graphic broswer. > In conclusion, I don't think that I am in favour of removing* U from > HTML, but rather would I like to see that its usecases is specified > better. I always have my back between two chairs (french expression ;-)). I don't find a sense to <u> and, above all, an importance to keep <u> tag. I have some ideas, like <u> tag should be a necessity for e.g. e-mail. But it's not suffisant. Underlined a part of text doesn't have sense in occidental language, but I don't know what it means for the rest of the world. Maybe, in definitive, we might keep <u> from HTML, but in depreciated status, or with a notice explain the dilemma. HTML 5 must be a new clean HTML, and not get HTML 4 old heritage (I hear by old heritage, all these depreciated tags). Regards, -Ivan
Received on Monday, 31 December 2007 09:17:27 UTC