Re: TECH: Re: Underlining

David J. Peterson wrote:
...
> I'm glad someone spoke up in favor of non-underlined links!
> Underlining is important, and shouldn't be relegated merely to
> links.  Consider that the difference between bold and non-bolded
> text is often difficult to distinguish (at least to me).  I don't
> consider
> it different enough from ordinary text to use.  Also consider that
> many of us (including me) have unicode fonts that don't have
> italic options.
That's not the right way to go about it. Just because <em> defaults to
italics and <strong> defaults to bold doesn't mean they *mean* italic or
bold; this is precisely why the <b>, <u> and <i> tags have been
deprecated in favor of <strong>/<em>.

If you *personally* find bold hard to read, use standard HTML tags for
emphasis, and then in your own *personal* CSS file, you should override
it. That means your site works for everyone perfectly normally, *and*
everyone's website works for you the way you want it!

>And even if you go to the trouble to devise a
> romanization system for your language that *does* italicize
> correctly, what do you do if you want to show an example of
> your language, and highlight a specific portion of your example?
> I refuse to put everything in quotes--especially when the English
> translation is going to go in quotes, as well!  For these situations,
> I *always* use an underline in conjunction with italics, as with
> this page:
>
> http://dedalvs.free.fr/kamakawi/adjectives.html
In that particular context, I'd probably actually not mark the foreign
text. The fact that it's in a separate bullet is enough. (I'd also
probably put the English in a separate line, and maybe drop the quote
marks, like so:

 - Ka *mata* lea i'i
   "He *saw* me."

or

 - Ka *mata* lea i'i
   He *saw* me.

Though maybe it doesn't work as well as I imagine it should, and it
doesn't help the question of if you were highlighting an example in
running text. In those contexts, I think mixing <strong> and <em> would
be the way to go...