W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: some thoughts on objections to publishing ""HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

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>
Message-Id: <1183412127.7058.409.camel@pav>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT