W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Brainstorming - abbreviations

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:14:23 +0100
To: "Robert Brodrecht" <w3c@robertdot.org>, colin@cactusflower.org
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.to8319sn5rel5w@quark>

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:05:46 +0100, Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>  
wrote:

> I think most people don't understand because it is rarely explained
> clearly.

But is the difference really that important? What's important, imho, is  
that you can mark up a word or set of characters as a shortening of  
something. Exactly how the shortening was achieved or how the word is  
pronounced (in its short form) isn't that interesting. As long as you have  
a method to assess the expanded version of the shortening, everyone should  
be happy. Then, whether it's an acronym or an abbreviation, doesn't really  
matter.

For instance, how would you mark up "SQL", "PNG" or "JPEG"? They are all  
acronyms, but can also be abbreviations as they can be spelled out as  
words instead of single consecutive letters; Sequel, Ping, Jaypeg.

I don't find the difference between abbreviations and acronym important  
enough to maintain it in a technical standard as HTML. Thus, I suggest  
both be replaced with a single element:

   <short>

> Abbreviations and acronyms fill two completely different roles.  Because
> of this, having both is not a problem.

When having both causes definition problems, I'd say it's a problem.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 22:14:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 March 2007 22:14:12 GMT