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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:17:26 -0600
Message-ID: <da131fde0802070417y26dff487oa8b07d74a5525574@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>, "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>

He is so <del cite="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour">stupid</del> smart...

Regards,
Jeff

On Feb 6, 2008 10:01 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
>
> 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 Thursday, 7 February 2008 12:17:37 UTC

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