Re: <strike>

On 03/24/2010 06:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:03:59 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@må> 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.

Correction: this thread[1] started seeking the rationale for the current 
authoring requirements.

> 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.

People are welcome to pursue such bugs individually, but until 7034 is 
resolved, I think it is only fair to warn people that I will consider 
such resolutions provisional until the overall strategy question is settled.

- Sam Ruby


Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:27:18 UTC