W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: PRI - 10 abbreviations and acronyms

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:24:25 -0400
Message-Id: <199904270320.XAA73980@relay.interim.iamworld.net>
To: <po@trace.wisc.edu>, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 11:12 AM 4/26/99 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>ISSUE - 10:  This deals with 4.2 which reads
>
>"4.2 Specify the expansion of abbreviations and acronyms. [Priority 2 for
>the first occurrence of the acronym or abbreviation in a given document,
>Priority 3 thereafter.]"
>
>An AC Member felt that to expand abbreviations and acronyms is good writing
>style.  They did not feel that this checkpoint was an accessibility issue.
>They knew of no user agents that support the ACRONYM or ABBR tag.   As a
>result they felt that to should be priority 3.

What is the status of ABBR support in pwWebSpeak?  in HomePageReader?

One could even argue that Lynx supports it because it is quite easy to flop
to "view source," re-find the acronym with text searching, and read the
HTML code in the vicinity. 

There is also the matter of repairing gateways, which can be up and running
as fast as the docment can be a Recommendation, more or less.  

>This is a similar situation as PRI -9.  Should an item be required before it
>is supported by user agents?    This would help solve legacy problems in the
>future.  But how much should it be required today?
>
>
>PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
>None yet.    Comments?  Ideas?
> 
Received on Monday, 26 April 1999 23:20:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT