W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques Draft

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:58:24 -0500 (EST)
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: Patrizia Bertini <patrizia@patriziabertini.it>, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0312120953030.31065@homer.w3.org>

Slow down a minute. From your own email it suggests that two self-proclaimed
linguists are OK with the idea, and one is not...

To be clearer about ruby, I am not suggesting it in addition, but that it be
used instead of the abbr element, which could then quietly die out (based on
the fact that you can transform any acronym/abbr element in existing HTML to
XHTML 2 by putting them in a ruby element, giving them a default class, and
then leting authors tweak them for different ways of pronouncing stuff...

Or you could use a smart transformation - the sort of thing the UBAccess
and WebThing do, to go from stuff where one instance is marked up using abbr
to a more celanly marked up page, via the kind of mechanisms that are being
mooted for dealing with vocabulary and grammar stuff.



On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John M Slatin wrote:

>I'm delighted to hear from Chaals and Richard that the linguists have no
>objections to lumping acronyms and abbreviations together under a single
>element <abbr>.  If ruby is available as an additional option, so much
>the better.

Patrizia had written
>>Not very well in fact... as a Linguist, i don't agree in this
>>is formally wrong to use only the abbr elemt, better to find out a
>>third way IMVHO.
>>M2p -- pat
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 09:58:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:46 UTC