2014-06-10 15:33 GMT+02:00 Leonardo Boiko <leobo...@namakajiri.net>: > What about using U+0331 "combining macron below" or U+0320 "combining > minus below"? Here are some samples: > > U+0331 > > "̱test"̱ > “̱test”̱ > > U+0320 > > "̠test"̠ > “̠test”̠ > > > 2014-06-10 9:39 GMT-03:00 Philippe Verdy <verd...@wanadoo.fr>: > > (overstriking with <del> or <s> in HTML) > > Modern HTML phased out <s>, and <del> has semantic meanings > innapropriate for this case. It would be better to use CSS > "text-decoration: line-through". This point has been raised in the > comments of the original post. >
Yes but these two elements have default styl bindings exactly to the same king of decoration. The semantics of "del" is in fact appropriate in this case to mark the fact it is not an exact quotation, but the content is still skept as it gives the intended idea. <s> will not be phased out for the same reason that <small>, <big>, <b>, <i> will be kept. My opinion is that it is even better to use these elements than fixing a dependancy to some style="" attributes spread everywhere in the document. These elements give useful placements where you can contextually apply the styles matching your presentation, they carry the semantic that style does not carry at all (because they are not "cascading" even if they are written with CSS. What makes the cascade in CSS is not what you put in styles, but it is the structure of elements in the document, that you can contextually and semantically preserve in your "selectors". so <del>"</del" has the correct semantic meaning: not a real quotation mark because the content is not an exact quotation and was written by the same author as the rest of the unquoted text. Its presentation in fact does not matter if you want to present <del> another way. you could as well use a <q class="quasi">...</q>
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
