- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:34:31 +0100
- To: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
- CC: Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
gonchuki 08-02-07 19.23: > On Feb 7, 2008 4:05 PM, Chasen Le Hara <rendezvouscp@gmail.com> wrote: > > believe that the overall benefit of marking up the > > referenced bug with the strike element *might* be worth the cost of keeping > > it in the spec *if* we can find other use cases for the strike element. It > > would be great if we could find semantics for the strike element, but I > > don't see that happening. > > You won't find it as <strike> is a presentational element. Stroked > doesn't mean resolved, or invalid, or whatever. It just means stroked > and that's just visual perception. Remember that semantics go beyond > what the user perceives visually, it's about giving concrete and > concise meaning to the marked up text. > You yourself evidently gives semantic interpretation to the visual effect of the DEL element. And it is your claim that STRIKE is presentational. We are her to draft a new version of HTML. SMALL was presentational in HTML 4. But SMALL has now received a logical «semantification». And this is what I propose for STRIKE as well. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 18:34:51 UTC