Emphasizing STRIKE

I don't how many occurences of the STRIKE elements - <STRIKE> and <S> - 
Google can reveal, if such a thing has any relationsship to this. But 
semantically, if the case can be made for the underline element - as has 
recently been done -  then it can also be made for the STRIKE element.

The strike element cannot be replaced by the DEL element. The DEL 
element is for marking up document revisions. According to the draft: 
«The del element represents a removal from the document.» Wheras the 
STRIKE element in fact represent an addition: the very strike itself.

Usecases: In a time when more and more is moving to «web format», we for 
instance need to be able to translate documents (from one human language 
to another) e.g. using some kind of «Web word processor»to do so. And 
what  do translators find in paper documents? Text that has been striked 
over, is not uncommon. Another usecase is «webification» of paper files 
and documents.  Eg, think intelligence services files ;-).

I don't understand what the motivation for removing the strike element 
could possibly be? For instance, a mark-up like <del><strike>I 
liked</strike></del> is entirely possible.

I don't know how an AT reader treats the STRIKE element. But it should 
of course be able to inform the user that the text has ben striked over 
- just as someone reading a text in front of an audience would inform 
the listeners during the reading, if some part of the text has become 
striked over. STRIKE is not just about achieving a stylistic effect - or 
without relevance to AT users. On the contrary, the STRIKE element 
instead of a SPAN with a a strike-through decoration, could be 
especially helpful for AT users.

Some referenes to arguments in favour of STRIKE from  2007:
     Rob Burns:
     Murray Maloney:
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 08:22:50 UTC