- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:05:12 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > > But I'm afraid we cannot completely put aside the issue. The reason is > that recently the <u> element was promoted from obsolete physical markup > to conforming semantic markup, though with semantics that really > confuses me: "The u element represents a span of text with an > unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such > as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese > proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt." > > So the question "which markup should I use to indicate a word as > intentionally misspelt?" is currently "the <u> element". You may use the <u> element to mark up an element that is misspelt. I wouldn't say "should", and the intention is orthogonal to the element's definition. In fact, given the element's definition, you equally use it to mark up words that are intentionally spelt _correctly_. The point is just that <u> is used to explicitly annotate some text without saying why in a textual manner. This makes it quite distinct from [sic], which is an explicitly articulated annotation. > This sounds somewhat unnatural, though, since in the absence of > stylesheet rules for <u>, and when styles are disabled, <u> is rendered > as underlined in visual presentation. This tends to draw attention more > than is desirable in most situations. I would not expect authors to use <u> where [sic] is appropriate. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 10:05:12 UTC