W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

<strike> (was: Re: Bug 7034)

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>
Message-ID: <op.u93eoms564w2qv@annevk-t60>
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
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC