W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:01:39 +0100
Message-ID: <47A9D9E3.4040100@malform.no>
To: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

gonchuki 08-02-06 16.28:   ­
> Nothing ensures that striking text on paper will let it remain
> readable. This is more of a visual representation and perception issue
> than a semantic one.
>   

Writing anyting on paper, for instance by hand, doesn't guarantee it 
becomes readable. What is your point? We are not talking about 
accidently hitting the paper with a stroke.

The strike element _informs_ that the selected text has a strike through 
itself. That is an information that has semantic implications.  But what 
that strike represents - why it was striked out - that is for the reader 
to judge. To say that it does represent an edition, if you have no 
information about such a thing, is to give unfounded information. The 
reader has to judge that for him-/herself, based on context and other 
information available.

If this strike also does represent a certain edition, then you can add a 
INS - or a DEL - around it, dependeing on whether it is - or should be - 
inserted or deleted.

> > Even if you know the date, the point is not to emphasize that this
> > represents a certain edition. For instance if you want, in your blog, to
> > humorously mark up- "he is stupid" as deleted, and "he is nice" as
> > inserted, then you should use <strike>stupid</strike> and not
> > <del>stupid</del> (and the underline element - not INS).
>
> this is actually a <del> tag, even if inserted on purpose the semantic
> meaning is that of a revision on the text to delete your supposed
> previous statement. To clarify, on this particular use case your
> intention is to represent deleted text, even if you are joking around.
>   

Absolutely not. You are wrong. The DEL and INS are supposed to show 
actual edition. In this example, <strike>stupid</strike> does not 
represent any edition. It represent the one and only edition.  The 
reader will have to judge for him- or herself whether to take it 
humorously or not. After all, it is a joke.

> > For instance, to insert a striked out text - that you forgot to notice
> > the first time. Without the STRIKE element, we would have to use a
> > meaningless DEL inside INS. This perhaps gives the same visual effect.
> > But it doesn't have the same semantics. Thus it is, in fact, visual
> > non-semantic mark-up. It can be compared to using INS instead of the
> > UNDERLINE element.
>
> if your HTML is correctly marked up with the relevant datetime
> attribute on the <ins> tag, then inserting a <del> tag with its proper
> datetime will clarify the edition process you made.
>   

Of course it will. But as explained, the point with STRIKE is not to 
«clarify the edition process», but to accuratly mark up the phrase 
structure of a certain text. Without regard to the historical process 
that text might have gone through.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 16:02:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:12 GMT