- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:35:27 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 19:39 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote: [...] > In fact, there appears to be cases where the document isn't as neutral > as it should be. e.g. > > | The following elements have been removed because they have not been > | used often, created confusion or can be handled by other elements: > | > | * acronym is not included because it has created lots of confusion. > | Authors are to use abbr for abbreviations. > > Saying that it created confusion only represents one side of the issue. > There are some people who believe both acronym and abbr should be > included and are clearly distinct. There are others that believe both > should be allowed and defined synonymously. There are probably others > that believe acronym should be chosen over abbr because it has better > support in IE. In order to remain as neutral as possible, I recommend > changing that text to the following: > > * acronym is considered redundant in favour of abbr. That's not a huge improvement. It's still not clearly neutral. Considered by whom? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 21:35:38 UTC