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 UTC

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