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

Re: Emphasizing STRIKE

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:26:23 +0100
Message-ID: <47AB858F.8030904@malform.no>
To: public-html@w3.org

Smylers 08-02-07 20.49:
> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
> > > > I think you have brought up a very good usecase for STRIKE here.
> > > > Here the stricken text represent the very reference to the bug.
> > >
> > > However there are a number of other presentations that bug tracking
> > > systems could use to denote closed bugs -- for example they could be
> > > in red rather than black.  But that wouldn't be a reason for adding
> > > a <red> element.
> >
> > HTML 5 says that B and I are not necessarily rendered in bold or in
> > italics. The same goes without saying about STRIKE.  It does not need
> > to have that line-through style.
> So why does this usecase suggest we need a <strike> element?  

Any element might loose its (visual) power if you remove the default 

> If the actual formatting is something that we're doing in CSS then an
> element specifically for striking-out doesn't seem to be needed in
> this situation.

With STRIKE, even non-CSS browsers and AT users might get fast access to 
which bugs reports are "finished".

STRIKE or S could make use of the TITLE attribute for cross referencing, 
as mentioned in HTML 5 about "the DFN element". That way one could 
specify why it is "striked up". E.g like below.

<p>Striked through bug references denotes
<dfn title='closed'>closed bug reports</dfn>.</p>
<!-- ... later in the document: -->
<p><a href='~/#b1234'><s title='closed'>Bug#1234</s></a>
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 22:26:47 UTC

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