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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:04:27 +0100
Message-ID: <47AB1DFB.7070904@malform.no>
To: Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Chasen Le Hara 08-02-07 07.19:   ­
> Leif, I disagree with your arguments in favor of the strike element 
> (for reasons outlined by others). However, I want to bring up one use 
> case for the strike element for discussion: its (lack of) use in 
> Bugzilla.
>
> In Bugzilla, a reference to a bug that has been resolved is linked and 
> stricken through (using a class). The del element is inappropriate in 
> this circumstance because the reference is not an edit to the document 
> (nor is the reference being deleted), which leaves a class or the 
> strike element.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced that the strike element is 
> (semantically) correct to use in this use case, or that it would be 
> worth keeping around for use cases like this, but I think it should at 
> least be considered.

You say that it is not an edit to the document. However, if Bugzilla had 
been paperbased, then it would indeed been percived as an edit. And if 
your task was to document the edit, then you should do this:

<del>bug#999</del><ins><strike>bug#999</strike></ins>

However, since it is not your purpose to document the editing process, 
but rather to document the bug fixing process, you can forget about 
<DEL> and <INS>.

I think you have brought up a very good usecase for STRIKE here.  Here 
the stricken text represent the very reference to the bug.

This is, to my mind, the same as the example I mentioned: a name on a 
sertificate  that has been stricken over. It has not been deleted, for 
it is needed, as reference. It has simply been demphasized, with a stroke.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 15:04:40 GMT

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