Filed J.J.’s report as a bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25205 Leif H Silli Leif Halvard Silli, Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:33:47 +0100: > Jukka K. Korpela, Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:10:42 +0200: >> 2014-03-28 21:44, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> >>> Indeed. After all, <strike> and <s> are synonyms. >>> >>> Leif H >>> >>> j.j., Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:03:42 +0100: >>>> The validator warns about <strike>: >>>> >>>> "The strike element is obsolete. Use CSS instead." >>>> >>>> It should recommend to use <s> instead. >> >> In browser reality, and by HTML 4.01, <strike> and <s> are >> synonymous, but by HTML5 CR, which is what matters here, they are >> not. The <s> element is conforming, whereas <strike> is not, and >> <strike> has no definition. > > Well, I don't see that that make them not synonyms. HTML5 in fact says: > > ”strike > Use del instead if the element is marking an edit, otherwise use s > instead. > ” > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/obsolete.html#strike > >> In the HTML5 logic, which is not very logical, but by which >> validators should work, <strike> is an obsolete, nonconforming, ugly, >> naughty, impure, cursed presentational tag, whereas <s> is a proud >> Semantic tag. By that logic, <s> should be used instead of <strike> >> only in the very special case where the some semantics was meant to >> be implied by <strike> and this accidentally happens to coincide with >> the semantics of <s>. > > Yes, it is true that del should be used if strike was used to signify > del semantics, while s should be used if strike was used to signify s > semantics. > > I suppose that HTM5 expresses itself the way it does because it does > not make any assumptions about whether those who use <strike> has used > its correctly (that is: as a <s>) or not. This makes some sense since > the semantics of <s> perhaps can be said to have been altered. > > LeifReceived on Saturday, 29 March 2014 12:40:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:41 UTC