- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:01:39 +0100
- To: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
- CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
gonchuki 08-02-06 16.28: > 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. > Writing anyting on paper, for instance by hand, doesn't guarantee it becomes readable. What is your point? We are not talking about accidently hitting the paper with a stroke. The strike element _informs_ that the selected text has a strike through itself. That is an information that has semantic implications. But what that strike represents - why it was striked out - that is for the reader to judge. To say that it does represent an edition, if you have no information about such a thing, is to give unfounded information. The reader has to judge that for him-/herself, based on context and other information available. If this strike also does represent a certain edition, then you can add a INS - or a DEL - around it, dependeing on whether it is - or should be - inserted or deleted. > > 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. > Absolutely not. You are wrong. The DEL and INS are supposed to show actual edition. In this example, <strike>stupid</strike> does not represent any edition. It represent the one and only edition. The reader will have to judge for him- or herself whether to take it humorously or not. After all, it is a joke. > > 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. > Of course it will. But as explained, the point with STRIKE is not to «clarify the edition process», but to accuratly mark up the phrase structure of a certain text. Without regard to the historical process that text might have gone through. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 16:02:15 UTC