- From: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:08:58 +0000
- To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
On 08/02/2008, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > If I cannot convince you that <strike> > is purely presentational (and therefore > semantic-free), just as are <b>, <u>, <i> > and so on), whilst <strike> (cf. <strong>, > <heading>, <em>) are purely semantic and > carry no presentational overtones, then > I am afraid we will have to differ. It looks like you have <strike> in both camps there... or I'm not following. It's not so much about that, nor is it what I am trying to say. It's pretty clear the official HTML definition of strike has always had a purely presentational stance. It's just that this thread attempted to draw parallels with real-world uses, especially paper-based, and tried to suppose that strike and delete had different applications there too. This did not work. Marking something as deleted is conceptual regardless of technique, as one cannot show something is deleted without displaying the deletion in some way. I really don't think we have a reason to reinstate the strike element. Hypothesising that there may be other valid reasons for striking out text doesn't help, it creates uncertainty. The del element is an adequate replacement for the most common reason for the use of strike. For other reasons, use a more appropriate element, e.g. for Doomsday Book-style highlighting, use styled ems. -- Lee
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 13:09:10 UTC