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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:30 UTC