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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:49:20 +0100
Message-ID: <47A9C8F0.4010102@malform.no>
To: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

gonchuki 08-02-06 12.42:   
> Striked text is actually a document revision even on paper, the most

Vieved from the a particular angle, it is possible agree with you.

However, a paper cannot be revised. It can only be altered. For paper, 
if possible, you print out/write a new paper - a new document. To 
document the revisions, you keep the different papers. If this is not 
possible, you must strike.  And you strike - you do not delete. The 
alteration has to be done in such a way that everyone can see what you did.

  The point with strikes on a paper is exactly that you cannot remove 
them. Unlike the DEL element. The DEL element represent text that you 
can set to display:none, unless you are the editor or another person 
with particular interest in the document revision. Wheras the STRIKE 
element represents text that it is required that readers know about. 
Style and form has always been important in judging the authensity of a 
document.  Therefore STRIKE must be used for strikes, while DEL and INS 
can be used if the author wants to document his or her own editing of a 

> we could do to cover such cases when you want to keep record on
> deleted sections prior to document transcription is add an appropiate
> datetime attribute, or if that doesn't suffice then propose an
> alternate attribute for the <del> element.

This is more complicated than just keeping STRIKE.

And also, STRIKE represents text for which the date is not important. 
You most likely have no clue about when the text was striked. Or, it is 
not your task telling when it was added.

Even if you know the date, the point is not to emphasize that this 
represents a certain edition. For instance if you want, in your blog, to 
humorously mark up- "he is stupid" as deleted, and "he is nice" as 
inserted, then you should use <strike>stupid</strike> and not 
<del>stupid</del> (and the underline element - not INS).

Yeah, let's say wan the the <del> tag to be visible for your geeky 
readers, then you should use STRIKE and not DEL:

<strike> &lt;del&gt; stupid &lt;/del&gt; </strike>

> To any extent, <strike> doesn't work any better than <del> for such
> cases. (why is it striked, when it was striked... all these are
> attributes of the <del> element).

Different attributes of DEL? You mean different semantics - at once? 
Becaus that is that DEL would then be given.

Btw, I mentioned STRIKE inside DEL:
> > For instance, a mark-up like <del><strike>I
> > liked</strike></del> is entirely possible

But STRIKE inside INS can also be meaningful:


For instance, to insert a striked out text - that you forgot to notice 
the first time. Without the STRIKE element, we would have to use a 
meaningless DEL inside INS. This perhaps gives the same visual effect. 
But it doesn't have the same semantics. Thus it is, in fact, visual 
non-semantic mark-up. It can be compared to using INS instead of the 
UNDERLINE element.


Also, if you write a translation, with a longer bit of text that has 
been striked out, you might want to edit the translation at a later 
point, and might then make use of a INS and/or DEL inside STRIKE.

<strike><ins>yes,</ins> indeed</strike>
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 14:49:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:30 UTC