Re: Regarding the <abbr> tag

M-W defines it's "a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the 
initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts 
of a compound term".  So you're probably right that I used the wrong term 
(I'm assuming words must be pronounceable).  QUT doesn't fit the 
definition of abbreviations either.  Actually initialism would be the 
proper term. But I don't really see the point of your argument (I just 
used that as an example because I was replying to some who, improperly 
used it as an example.) since braille handles still handles acronyms and 
abbreviations differently, and that is what I was addressing.  In fact, 
depending on the author initialisms could be handled even differently. 
Which is exactly why I feel it's important that we address this.

-Wesley Upchurch




"Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> 
01/28/2008 12:34 PM
Please respond to
"Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>


To
Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com
cc
"public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Regarding the <abbr> tag








Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com wrote:

> (For your example, the QUT would 
> likely make sense when read, but need to be spelled out completely on a 
> braille output device, because braille presents acronyms - like QUT - 
> and abbreviations differently.)

Wesley, could you clarify how "QUT" qualifies as
an acronym ?  Using the definition of Garland Cannon
(Texas A&M University) in his paper "Abbreviations and
Acronyms in English Word-Formation", published in
/American Speech/, Vol. 64, No. 2. (Summer, 1989),
pp. 99-127 [1] : "an artificial word created by eliding
the first one or two letters of each word in a phrase
so as to yield a pronounceable whole", which I think
is pretty much what most regard as an acronym, it
is difficult to see how "QUT" qualifies.  With
the "U" used up to form the [KW] sound, there
is no remaining vowel to indicate what should be
sounded between [KW] and [T].

Philip TAYLOR