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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:41:16 +0000
Message-ID: <47AC5BFC.6030507@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>



Lee Kowalkowski wrote:

> It looks like you have <strike> in both camps there... or I'm not following.

Mea culpa.

> 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.

Fine, it seems we agree about what matters, and
can agree to disagree about the rest.  <Strike>
has no place in HTML, since (a) it conveys a
purely visual effect, and (b) that effect can
be perfectly well achieved without requiring
its use.

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 13:41:24 GMT

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