- From: KangHao Lu (Kenny) <kennyluck@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 02:17:11 +0900
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Cc: CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <594E06FE-F442-4239-AC20-995CFE573067@w3.org>
Hello Addison, > One form of East Asian emphasis are emphasis marks, such as Japanese > bouten. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-jlreq-20081015/#en-subheading2_3_9 > > While one might choose to use <i> or <b> tags to indicate this form > of emphasis (it is just emphasis, after all), using <u> might be > semantically closer. <i> and <b> typically are implemented via an > actual variation in the presentation of the text itself. <u> would > mean text emphasized with something drawn near it or added to it. > This doesn't mean that <i> can't be used to underline text (or > otherwise decorate it). But providing <u> does give an element whose > semantic meaning is closer to "text-emphasis-style" than <i> or <b> > suggest. > -- > > Any comments on my use case? Is it a reasonable one? Or is <i> or > such really a better choice for this? I think based on their way of reasoning, they will ask you to use <em> here, which I actually agree with. Proper noun marks are supposed to be applied on *every* proper noun, so it certainly doesn't have a meaning of emphasis. Of course there might be other arguments such as using <em> is not intuitive, but I doubt how convincing it is. The use cases for <u> might be those existing old rules about using underline in typography, such as you use underline in manuscripts for texts to be italicized (I leaned this yesterday). I do think their might be other weird rules around the world as weird as this proper noun mark. If you do have any other example, that should be brought up. I have to say I am not a fan of <u> either. What makes me uncomfortable is the inconsistency I sense here and I rather want all <i> <b> <u> to get to the status of "Obsolete but conforming" altogether. The editor claims that now <i> gets new semantics (the meaning of alternate mood or voice), but he includes ship name as an example, and I don't think you would pronounce a ship name in an alternative mood or voice (am I wrong here?). Some options here: - We want <i> <b> <u> to go into "Obsolete but conforming" altogether - <i> and <b> should remove the meaning of "an offset from the normal prose", so use cases such as using <i> for ship names should be invalid or at least "Obsolete but conforming" FYI, in current spen <b><i> have the following definition <b> The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance, such as key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, or other spans of text whose typical typographic presentation is boldened. <i> The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, a thought, a ship name, or some other prose whose typical typographic presentation is italicized. I think the examples for <i> are not very culturally neutral, and I don't think the current description for <b> adds any new semantics to it. If listing examples is enough then we can make a list of example use of <u> as well. (Side info: for the proper noun mark use case, fantasai proposed <i> and Chinese folks proposed <b> cause they all have the "offset from the normal prose" meaning". Well...) This topic was discussed here two years ago, right?
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 17:17:47 UTC