- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:35:41 +0200
- To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: > Dear group, > > During the previous teleconference call we agreed on an approach for > using <acronym> elements in our documents. BTW, which definition of acronym do we share? Some people insist on acronyms to be pronouncable words, like RADAR. With this definition, XML and RDF would not be acronyms, while EARL would be one. AIRC, the fuzzy "definition" of acronym in the HTML specs lead to dropping it for XHTML2 and HTML5. > #3. Do not markup acronyms where it is already expanded. For example: > "Evaluation and Report Language (<acronym title="Evaluation and Report > Language">EARL</acronym>)..." is redundant and unnecessary. Should we do not markup them, or should we not expand them? EARL is still an acronym and _could_ still be marked like this: <acronym>EARL</acronym>. However there may be no use for AT, while there may be other uses. -- Johannes Koch Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT Web Compliance Center Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 09:36:15 UTC