>We have, e.g., <em> and <strong> and the differences between the two seem >less clear than the difference between <acronym> and <abbr>. That is, >there is a clear time to use an acronym and an abbr according to a >particular definition, while the line between emphasis and strong is very >fuzzy. The em/strong/b/i situation is certainly worthy of its own thread; I'll give dollars to doughnuts there are some strong thoughts on the issue, but the point is well taken. >> 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> > >That's a fine idea. Basically, what you've done is thrown out both >specific meanings in favor of an equally easy to type element. I can get behind this logic, except that I don't see a reason to create a new element: abbreviated & short are nearly synonymous. Why not just say <abbr> is for any abbreviated form?Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:24:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:25:00 GMT