Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

>   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
> document.

Nothing ensures that striking text on paper will let it remain
readable. This is more of a visual representation and perception issue
than a semantic one.


> 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).

this is actually a <del> tag, even if inserted on purpose the semantic
meaning is that of a revision on the text to delete your supposed
previous statement. To clarify, on this particular use case your
intention is to represent deleted text, even if you are joking around.

> 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.

if your HTML is correctly marked up with the relevant datetime
attribute on the <ins> tag, then inserting a <del> tag with its proper
datetime will clarify the edition process you made.

--
Gonzalo Rubio

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 15:28:31 UTC