- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:02:43 +0100
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Karl Dubost, Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:32:45 -0400: > > Le 27 mars 2010 à 08:17, Sam Ruby a écrit : >> <b style="background:transparent;color:red">1984</b> >> <strike>the</strike> > > but you could do <del>removed</del> Karl: I hope you eventually will confirm that you stand by that claim ... ;-) Because, if one can use <del> like that, then why can't one just as well use <h1> whenever one wants to have text in a big size font? The following should work quite well, in a CSS supporting user agent: <div>The <h1 style=display:inline >big</h1> text.</div> The typographic feature "line-through" can either be "just" that. Or it can be a signal which tells a story about the edition history that a particular text has gone through. Or it can be something "in between". For instance, if I write a blog post where I from the start want to indicate a word that I partly don't mean, then I play on the "this text has been deleted" perception. Should I then use <del>, in a situation were I have no plans of removing the line-through? I don't perceive it as <del>'s task to help authors presenting irony. For <del> one can also remove the default line-through styling and instead e.g. use a red color. Whereas it make much less sense to remove the line-through for <strike>. Also, if I had been using <del> instead of <strike>, and if the text later was marked-up with a second <del> *for its intended purpose* (namely, as editing history signal), then how would I able to discern between the <del> with stylistic semantics and the other <del> with the intended semantics? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 17:03:18 UTC