Forum Query: Why Doesn't Underline Underline ?
3dcheapskate
Posts: 2,728
Bold ... this text should be bold
Italic ... this text should be italic
Underline ... this text should be underlined
Nuff said?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
...this has been an issue ever since the current version of the forums software has been rolled out back in 2012. I think it was explained once way back when, but I have no idea where to look for the post.
Supposedly there is a new forums to be launched "sometime" but I have heard that for quite a few months now.
Also sent in as a support request #172534
Forum Query: Why Doesn’t Underline Underline ?
Regarding the formatting options for posts on your forums.
The bold and italic options work as expected, but the underline option makes the text italic as well
Forum Query: Why Doesn’t Underline Underline ? - http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/43825/
Yeah I know (the "it's been like this since the new forums arrived" bit).
But occasionally I like to ask these same old questions again.
Just for a laugh.
;o)
Google underline site:daz3d.com/forums/
Kyoto Kid - it was just over two years ago you mentioned it...
27 May 2012 post here http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/123/P135/#5907
6 June 2012 here http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/133/P345/#17770
Looking at the source code, the wrong html tag is set for the underline bbcode.
...so why hasn't anyone there in site development fixed it yet?
...kind of forgot as a lot has occurred in these past two years.
In either case never received a satisfactory answer as to "why".
...kind of forgot as a lot has occurred in these past two years.
In either case never received a satisfactory answer as to "why".
All things considered, the answer to "why" is likely "because". :)
Ahhhh! Found the reason!
"The element is redefined in HTML5, to represent text that should be stylistically different from normal text, such as misspelled words or proper nouns in Chinese."*
So we're foolishly thinking that that button with '' on it should underline text! When of course we should only be using it for misspelt words and Chinese proper nouns (Beijing perhaps?)
:-/
(That begs the question - how would one tell the difference between a correctly spelled/spelt Chinese proper noun and a misspelled one?)
*http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_u.asp
More where that came from...
- emphasized text.
- important text.
- In HTML 4.01, the tag was used to render text in italics. However, this is not necessarily the case with HTML5.
- According to the HTML 5 specification, the tag should be used as a LAST resort when no other tag is more appropriate. The HTML 5 specification states that headings should be denoted with the to tags, emphasized text should be denoted with the tag, important text should be denoted with the tag, and marked/highlighted text should use the tag.
So now we all know. Or not.
...it is because they (the software developers) failed to heed the following axiom;
"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it, because when you do try to fix it you will inevitability end up breaking it."
...seems these days "upgrades" have become "downgrades" from the user's POV.
MS Office 2010
Windows 8
Google Services (with no warning to the user)
Big Data (the "cloud")
HTML 5
Magento
From a web developer's perspective, the old , , way of doing things was broken. There are few things as tedious as going through a website that someone else had previously hard-coded with bold and italic tags and changing them because the site owner wants a different style for the same page elements. Switching to tags that are based more on what the style is supposed to represent (emphasis, strong emphasis, marked, etc.) instead of a specific style (italic, bold, etc.) encourages the use of HTML for structure and CSS for style -- which is where it belongs, and which allows the person updating the site two years after you to simply change one line instead of several dozen if the client decides they'd rather the emphasized text be blue instead of bold. (And yes, while and its abbreviated cohorts can take CSS overrides just as easily, it just feels wrong to write BOLD { font-weight: normal; }, which is another reason for the shift).
Of course, all of that still means that the {u} tag here is broken, since -- W3C usage suggestions aside -- there's no reason it shouldn't be working as intended here. It would just properly be using a or tag with CSS specifying text-decoration: underlined instead of a . , as it seems to be using, isn't really invalid (see: structure, not style), but failing to specify the text-decoration which is the point of the feature is the critical part.
Totally agree with you on that bit - I love the structure/style split (I'm no expert, but I''ve been creating websites for myself and friends since just after the end of the last millenium - I use a plain old text editor, with syntax highlighting, and the W3C's validators, and I have on rare occasions looked at the W3C specs and recommendations...).
I'd hazard a guess that the error in these forums with the option for posts (which explicitly says "underline text" if you hover over the button) is probably in the off-the-shelf forum software itself.
The real issue is that when you hover over the buttons a little hint text pops up to compound the misconception - bold, italic and underline. Simply removing the underline option completely would be better than the misleading current situation. At least the and buttons currently do what you'd expect.
I think that the words "upgrade" and "downgrade" are deprecated - the word we are using now is "changegrade"...
;-)
Totally agree with you on that bit - I love the structure/style split (I'm no expert, but I''ve been creating websites for myself and friends since just after the end of the last millenium - I use a plain old text editor, with syntax highlighting, and the W3C's validators, and I have on rare occasions looked at the W3C specs and recommendations...).
I'd hazard a guess that the error in these forums with the option for posts (which explicitly says "underline text" if you hover over the button) is probably in the off-the-shelf forum software itself.
The real issue is that when you hover over the buttons a little hint text pops up to compound the misconception - bold, italic and underline. Simply removing the underline option completely would be better than the misleading current situation. At least the and buttons currently do what you'd expect.
A plain text editor with syntax highlighting is the only way to go, if I have my druthers. Too often with a "WYSIWYG", what you see is not what you get, and that's nowadays -- you've been doing this long enough to remember the "bad old days" when no two browsers agreed on anything that wasn't trivial.
You might be right about it being an error in the forum software itself, but -- admittedly without looking into just how this particular forum suite is built -- I'm more inclined to suspect that the forum software has different options for skinning, and that the error came with the skin rather than the main software. And was probably just a cut-and-paste that never got edited.
That's been recommended for many years now. / and / are actually all from HMTL 2, why they haven't got rid of and yet goes over my head. Many other old tags have been deprecated long ago.
Thinking about it ShareCG had a similar problem (bold and underline worked, but italic didn't). I reported that over a year ago and nothing happened. I tried again a month or so ago and it was fixed almost straight off. If at first you don't succeed...
I've had a reply to the ticket I raised here at DAZ - it's been added to the list.
So I guess that's an improvement, as it probably wasn't even on the list before!