- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:26:10 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
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@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. 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 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0452.html
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:27:18 UTC