- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:59:40 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:41:46 +0200: > According to the Wikipedia Underline article, the phrase "Abraham, > Sarah" in the Chinese Union Bible's Genesis text [3] should render > roughly like this (I removed the comma to make the point clearer): > > _Abraham_ _Sarah_ > > But, actually, the Bible page in question actually does this: > > _Abraham_Sarah_ Ah, forget that. I only interpreted the Google translation. The Chinese text looks to do it correctly, when I count the number or underlinings per line. But ... hm ... Performing the Google translation is interesting: the resulting underline, in English, doesn't add meaning. And, I think that indicates that <u> is correct - relatively speaking (because I think punctuation is 'correctest'). It is relatively speaking correct, because, as a visual effect, it would not be incorrect to simply remove the style in the English translation. WHereas if the Chinese text had used <em>, then the punctuation would have had to carry over. And also, according to the 'semantified' <i> of HTML5, it would not have been correct to not let the cursive carry over to the English. Whereas for <u>, which is non-semantic, it doesn't matter if the underline is removed in the translation. Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 16:00:09 UTC