# Strikeout threw out? Strikethrough strikes out, throughout?

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strikeout-threw-out-strikethrough-strikes-out-throughout/820>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [October 17, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strikeout-threw-out-strikethrough-strikes-out-throughout/820 "2014-10-17T20:39:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 51

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tin-pot](https://talk.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/tin-pot/32/810_2.png) [@tin-pot](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/tin-pot)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 10:21am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strikeout-threw-out-strikethrough-strikes-out-throughout/820/51 "2016-01-09T10:21:06Z")

</div>

Not **one** of the implementations pulled in in [BabelMark](http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=Is+this+ ~~striked+out~~ +or+not%3F%0A%0AIs+this+~striked+out~+or+not%3F%0A%0A%0A "BabelMark strike-through example") translates the ` ~~word~~ ` syntax into an HTML `<s>` element (the `<del>` element type is an obvious alternative), and the majority of implementations don’t seem to recognize the syntax as anything special at all.

And by the way: How do you explain that `~~` _should_ translate into `<s>` and _not_ into `<del>` (and one would also need, for consistency, a syntax that translates into `<ins>` in that case)?

So in my point of view, I doubt that extending the _CommonMark_ syntax in this direction is consistent with _CommonMark_’s [stated goal](http://commonmark.org/ "CommonMark intro page") of being “highly compatible” (although extending and not only refining the syntax has been done before, too), at least for now.

I for one would wish that QUOTATION MARK translates (under certain circumstances) into `<q>`, which is after all the “official” HTML element type to contain, well: inline quotations—but writing the tags literally into the text does achieve what I want anyway (with just one keystroke more), so I don’t see any urgency here. And the same applies for strike-through formatting, in my opinion.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strikeout-threw-out-strikethrough-strikes-out-throughout/820)._