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 19:34:31 +0100
Message-ID: <47AB4F37.5070306@malform.no>
To: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
CC: Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org

gonchuki 08-02-07 19.23:   ­
> On Feb 7, 2008 4:05 PM, Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > believe that the overall benefit of marking up the
> > referenced bug with the strike element *might* be worth the cost of keeping
> > it in the spec *if* we can find other use cases for the strike element. It
> > would be great if we could find semantics for the strike element, but I
> > don't see that happening.
>
> You won't find it as <strike> is a presentational element. Stroked
> doesn't mean resolved, or invalid, or whatever. It just means stroked
> and that's just visual perception. Remember that semantics go beyond
> what the user perceives visually, it's about giving concrete and
> concise meaning to the marked up text.
>   

You yourself evidently gives semantic interpretation to the visual 
effect of the DEL element.

And it is your claim that STRIKE is presentational. We are her to draft 
a new version of HTML. SMALL was presentational in HTML 4. But SMALL has 
now received a logical «semantification».

And this is what I propose for STRIKE as well.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 18:34:51 GMT

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