[whatwg] sic element
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Jul 29 10:05:12 PDT 2011
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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg