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 13:08:58 +0000
Message-ID: <610592c90802080508n4ca2f242lff6213ec0381e88b@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:52 UTC