[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal 13031: Add Line-Through
I'm not sure what "this idea" (to which you are naying)
is, but since you say "as well", and I'm not sure that Nancy was
naying the actual proposal (Proposal 13031: Add Line-Through)--in fact, I hear
her saying that she doesn't like tying strikethrough to change tracking, and Dick
says there is no more connection between strikethrough and revision markup than
there is between italics and the <var> element--and I know I wasn't, I
thought we'd better clarify. While I am generally on the side of semantics and separating style
from content, is it not the case that strikethrough is equivalent to
deleted-content. In fact, I would be opposed to defining something
semantic like deleted-content to imply any particular formatting (such a
strike-through), so I don't see how a semantically descriptive element would
satisfy Eliot's requirements at all. The highlight domain isn't supposed to be semantic--it's for
highlighting. True, any non-semantic markup can be misused when there is
a more semantic markup that should be used, but tag abuse is even more likely
(and more confusing when it occurs) when you don't give users a non-semantic
way to get what they want and they have to use positively misleading markup
instead of just non-semantic markup. paul From: Schengili-Roberts,
Keith [mailto:Keith.Schengili-Roberts@amd.com] I’ll add my “nay” to this idea as well. The
“strikethrough” proposal is more a request for a formatting style
than a prescription for semantic change. I’d be much happier if the idea
called for a semantically-descriptive element (such as
“deleted-content”) rather than a prescriptive approach to how that
content should be formatted. As an example of this, we use DeltaXML to help us track changes
between documents, and instead of using strikethrough, we use CSS-type
changebars in the margin of the text to single out where change has occurred.
“Strikethrough” would be a very poor description of the change in
content. The only instance that Elliot lists that doesn’t quite fit
with the rest is the instance of “rhetorical strikethrough”. Thing
is, I have never seen that used in any technical documentation, only in
non-technical articles. If that is truly needed, then something suitably
descriptive, like “rhetorical-deletion” would be more semantically
descriptive. I also agree with Nancy on her points, and I can confirm that
overline has a special meaning in semiconductor/electrical engineering content,
where it typically means a negative value of the same term without the
overline. 8-{)} Keith Schengili-Roberts From: Nancy Harrison
[mailto:nancylph@gmail.com] Hi, On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Richard Hamilton <hamilton@xmlpress.net> wrote: I'm concerned that we're straying into a gray area with some
of this discussion about strike through.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]