W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2009

Re: use of <acronym> in our documents

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:19:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4A38C32B.8020704@w3.org>
To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Johannes, all,

Johannes Koch wrote:
> 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.

Responded in separate thread. I'm not sure that we need to develop such 
a definition for our use (let's leave it to XHTML/HTML standardizers).

>> #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.

I'm not aware of this use, and its pros or cons. It sounds OK from my 
perspective. Does anyone object to this?


Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:47:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:58 UTC