# Reviewing Markups

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/reviewing-markups/824>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [October 18, 2014, 4:53am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/reviewing-markups/824 "2014-10-18T04:53:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mofosyne](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/mofosyne/32/1438_2.png) [@mofosyne](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/mofosyne)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/reviewing-markups/824/7 "2014-10-18T14:31:18Z")

</div>

Okay after reading

- [http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag\_s.asp](http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_s.asp)
- [http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag\_del.asp1](http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_del.asp1)

I understand the semantic now. Well since this is only about revision. We shall only cover `<del>` and `<ins>` not `<s>` which represents ‘revised information to be published to public via strikeout mark’. The reviewing markups is for internal review within an organization. So most likely these things should be kept as an extension, but still defined and supported (so we can ensure everyone who uses it will speak it consistently)

1. ` ~~deleted text~~ ` using `<del>`
2. ` ~~deleted text~~ >added text~~` using `<del>` and `<ins>`
3. `++inserted text++` and `<ins>`

* * *

So… what would a 'non review mark` look like? That is a question for

1. `>> __underlined text__ <<`  
[Feature Request: underline text](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/feature-request-underline-text/343/10)

2. `>>-- striked out text --<<`  
[Strikeout threw out? Strikethrough strikes out, throughout?](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/strikeout-threw-out-strikethrough-strikes-out-throughout/820/12)

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/reviewing-markups/824)._