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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:40:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0802081839190.20115@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Philip TAYLOR 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.

In the spec as it stands today, <b> and <i> are not presentational and 
semantic-free. They are in fact defined in a semantic manner, just like 
<strong>, <em>, etc.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 18:40:16 GMT

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