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

Re: PRI-10 Abbreviations and acronyms

From: Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:55:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: eric hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9904271745090.5879-100000@dhaame.pair.com>
Should an item be required before it is implemented by user agents?
Yes, it should. In addition it should be required from user agents 
before it is used by content providers.

If the answer was no we wouldn't have HTML4.0 but only 
HTML2.0 and 3.2 which attempted to cover the current support
in most user agents. 

HTML4.0 is a coordination device that
helps content providers to predict what user agents will support 
and browser vendors what content providers will provide.

Nir Dagan

http://www.nirdagan.com
mailto:nir@nirdagan.com

"There is nothing quite so practical as a good theory." 
-- A. Einstein

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, eric hansen wrote:

> PRI-10 Abbreviations and acronyms
> 
> G. Vanderheiden's summary:
> 
> "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.
> 
> "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?"
> 
> 
> My response:
> 
> I essentially agree with the commenter. My comments are as follows:
> 
> {EH: Delete this. I think (4/23/99, added word "think") that this 
> checkpoint is a "poison pill" that, while seemingly innocuous, places an 
> untenable burden upon the Web developer. I think that it will discourage an 
> inordinate number of people from striving for triple-AAA compliance and 
> maybe the other compliance levels. If it must be retained, I suggest the 
> following change:
> 
> 4.2 Specify the expansion of first use of abbreviations and acronyms within 
> a document. [Priority 3] 
> For example, in HTML, use the "title" attribute of the ABBR and ACRONYM 
> elements. One can provide the expansion (especially of the first 
> occurrence) in the main body of the document. Or one can link to a glossary 
> (within the document or another document) that provides the expansion{EH: 
> 4/27/99}
> Techniques for checkpoint 4.2}
> 
> {EH: Old. 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.] 
> For example, in HTML, use the "title" attribute of the ABBR and ACRONYM 
> elements. Or, provide the expansion (especially of the first occurrence) in 
> the main body of the document. 
> Techniques for checkpoint 4.2}
> 
> 
> =============================
> Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
> Development Scientist
> Educational Testing Service
> ETS 12-R
> Rosedale Road
> Princeton, NJ 08541
> (W) 609-734-5615
> (Fax) 609-734-1090
> E-mail: ehansen@ets.org 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 1999 17:56:28 GMT

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