- From: Terje Norderhaug <Terje@in-Progress.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:44:10 -0700
- To: Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>, www-html@w3.org
At 3:44 PM 7/31/96, Charles Peyton Taylor wrote: >>>> Arne Knudson <ack@ebt.com> 07/31/96 10:36am >>> >> I fail to see that reasoning behind re-incorporating the deprecated font >> tags, like <U>, back into the DTDs. I thought that way back during the >> HTML 2.0 draft discussions, it was decided that <U> was rather evil, >> because somany browsers used underline to represent links. > >That's a browser-implementation problem. I've been using ><U>, and in MSIE and Mosaic it improves the appearance of >documents. > >Only using bold and italics gets less meaningful (because >the appearance is used for EM and STRONG) and downright >boring. I suggest to resolve the issue by that the guidelines for how a browser should render the EM element is changed from advising italics to advising that the EM is rendered with underline. Italics fonts doesn't display very well on screen anyway, and makes text harder to read (if readbable at all). Rendering EM with italics also mixes with the common rendering of citations. By not providing U but rather suggest underline for EM, it would invite more people to use the logical EM element with the associated long term advantages. -- Terje <Terje@in-Progress.com> http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/ Make your Web Site a Social Place with Interaction! http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/interaction
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 1996 20:35:28 UTC