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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:47:22 -0200
Message-ID: <8320a9390802061047u34bb4ae4t8e1a0c8ea2bb760@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

> 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.

The point is exactly that. If you just need a visual representation of
stroked-through text then use CSS. There are no semantics on striking
a text fragment other than revising the document. Your "that is for
the reader to judge" is exactly the contrary to a semantic meaning,
the markup must infer meaning to the text and not just visual
representation. If it's a "strike joke" or text in which you don't
exactly know the reason for being striken, then a span with
text-decoration: line-through is enough.
You should treat that "if you have no information about such a thing"
the same as you would transcribe red and blue text: If there is no
information on whether blue or red is for emphasizing then leave both
with default markup and don't force a <strong> or <em>.

> 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.

The joke is in the irony of playing with the insertion and deletion,
you are really pushing far away than is possible this vague use case.


> 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.

Your example had an "historical process" behind:
> > > 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.

it's not a "meaningless <del> inside <ins>" if datetime attributes are
correctly set, or if you are just inserting stroked text with no real
knowledge on why, then it's the same red/blue situation as above, use
CSS since you don't know why the text has been stroked.

--
Gonzalo Rubio
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 18:47:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:52 UTC