W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Acronym/Abbr needed in Evaluating Web Sites draft

From: Andrew Arch <amja@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 09:47:22 -1000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020506094704.028a6910@localhost>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Chuck,

In Australia WCAG is treated as an acronym in speech. So if we have <HTML
lang:en-au> then we can use <acronym>, but others maybe should use <abbr>

Your first sugegstion is a good one.

Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Letourneau" <cpl@starlingweb.com>
To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: Acronym/Abbr needed in Evaluating Web Sites draft


 > In  http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/impl/eval/ - Introduction, first
 > paragraph, first sentence:
 >
 > I suggest we add "(WCAG 1.0)" after "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
 > 1.0" to associate the acronym with the expansion.  This is necessary since
 > the acronym is used later without association. The alternative would be to
 > use the <acronym> or <abbr> element on the first occurrence of "WCAG 1.0"
 > later in the introduction.
 >
 > By the way, is WCAG an acronym or and abbreviation? Some of us pronounce
it
 > as "whu-kag", which would make it an acronym, but some of us spell it out
 > as "W. C. A. G." which would make it an abbreviation.  Please note: this
 > question is not intended to distract anyone from more important editing
 > efforts.  If anyone even mentions this on the conference call, I will hang
 > up. <grin>
 >
 > Chuck Letourneau
 >
 > 
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 15:52:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:33 GMT