- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:13:24 +0100
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Philip Taylor" <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, "HTMLwg WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:03:59 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > When it comes to maintenance and file size, then I think I have seen in > your blog, Anne, positive nods to people that picked elements that was > shorter ... At any rate, I don't see that <strike>txt</strike> takes up > more bytes than e.g. <span > style="text-decoration:line-through">txt</span>. <strike> is more > specific than <span>. Which is a good thing, and also makes it "more > semantic", so to speak. This thread started out about whether it was a good idea that xmlns="..." was a good validator mode switch. It seems you are instead arguing for retaining some presentational elements. Did you file a bug on introducing <strike> again in the draft? I'm not really opposed to that personally. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:14:20 UTC