- From: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:23:51 +0000
- To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
On 08/02/2008, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > Lee Kowalkowski wrote: > > Beats me, it seems to be based on the flawed assertion that del and > > strike are not synonymous, but in fact they are. > I genuinely do not understand how you can arrive > at that conclusion. <strike> indicates that the > element is "struck through"; Yes, which means deleted. To argue otherwise is futile, the mainstream definition of striking out text is to delete it. From an English language point of view, to strike something off a page means to delete it. > <del> and <strong> are semantic; <strike> and > <b> are purely presentational. I agree we don't need strike because we have del. And prefer del because of its compliment, ins. I also have no problem with marketing and encouraging del as the more complete or even semantic alternative to strike. I personally would never use strike. But to imply that there are valid non-semantic use-cases for strike is confusing. I wouldn't seriously entertain any other meaning or usage of strike, contrived or outdated, just as I wouldn't for del, because that's not going to be very productive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikethrough. -- Lee
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 11:24:11 UTC