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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:23:51 +0000
Message-ID: <610592c90802080323h7363b79xe22eff4ce198e1d4@mail.gmail.com>
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contrived or outdated, just as I wouldn't for del, because that's not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 GMT

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