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

Re: <strike>

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:26:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4BAA9182.6030205@intertwingly.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC