- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:19:23 +0200
- 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? Regards, Shadi -- 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