- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:51:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10862 --- Comment #6 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-10-02 12:51:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > See also bug 9429 (this bug is apparently asking to reverse the editor's > resolution on 9429). Well, yes and no. I am asking to reverse the editor's decision, but his decision differed from what the original requestor asked. I didn't want the editor to reverse his decision about the s element, only to decide in favor of the strike element (per original bug request). I don't believe either element should be made "conforming", because both elements were presentational, not semantic, in earlier versions of HTML. To re-define the element isn't "backwards compatible". It's also going to be confusing to authors. An additional concern I have is that an element specifically for marking incorrect or irrelevant text isn't necessary. The example he shows isn't particularly semantic, but does demonstrate how strike-through has been used: as a typographic gimmick. People also use it in an editorial sense, to convey an original impression, struck out in favor of a more polite response, such as the following: He is a <strike>moron</strike>misguided individual. This isn't a correction or marking up irrelevant text: it's a typographical ploy. The same as the example that the editor put into the spec (showing an old price in favor of a new--buy now!) And it represents probably the most frequent use of both <s> or <strike>. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:51:06 UTC