A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.
To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).
Change Proposal for ISSUE-144: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with 'This is the CCP against [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/UShouldBeConforming ChangeProposals - U Should Be Conforming]. == Summary == There is no new use cases a...') |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* All the reasons a human author might have to use <code><nowiki><u></nowiki></code> already have more appropriate elements, except the two cases given in the CP. They are both too rare on the Web to be considered valid use cases. | * All the reasons a human author might have to use <code><nowiki><u></nowiki></code> already have more appropriate elements, except the two cases given in the CP. They are both too rare on the Web to be considered valid use cases. | ||
* If we were to address the use case of content generated by an authoring agent, the same argument should be applied to <code><nowiki><font></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><big></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><layer></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><blink></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><tt></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><center></nowiki></code>, align="", etc. | * If we were to address the use case of content generated by an authoring agent, the same argument should be applied to <code><nowiki><font></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><big></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><layer></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><blink></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><tt></nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki><center></nowiki></code>, align="", etc, yet nobody is making such a case, suggesting that this rationale is not being consistently applied. Inconsistent application of rationales leads to very poor language design, confusing authors ("why is X possible but not the almost identical Y?" is a common question in such cases). | ||
* An underlined text which is not a hyperlink confuses the user in his/her browsing experience. | * An underlined text which is not a hyperlink confuses the user in his/her browsing experience. | ||
Revision as of 23:00, 26 March 2011
This is the CCP against ChangeProposals - U Should Be Conforming.
Summary
There is no new use cases addressed by the <u> element.
Rationale
- All the reasons a human author might have to use
<u>already have more appropriate elements, except the two cases given in the CP. They are both too rare on the Web to be considered valid use cases.
- If we were to address the use case of content generated by an authoring agent, the same argument should be applied to
<font>,<big>,<layer>,<blink>,<tt>,<center>, align="", etc, yet nobody is making such a case, suggesting that this rationale is not being consistently applied. Inconsistent application of rationales leads to very poor language design, confusing authors ("why is X possible but not the almost identical Y?" is a common question in such cases).
- An underlined text which is not a hyperlink confuses the user in his/her browsing experience.
Details
No change.
Impact
Positive Impact
Authors will have to use appropriate semantic markup for applying underlines. (e.g. <ins> for insertion, <em> for emphasis, etc.)
Negative Impact
None.