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

Re: More on acronyms and abbreviations

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:20:05 +0100
Message-ID: <004e01c3c0c3$6deab580$0600a8c0@iwars>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 4:06 PM
Subject: More on acronyms and abbreviations


Evidently I read Chass' post about <abbr> and <ruby> carelessly-- and as
a result my last post misrepresented his position.  He does *not*
support simply lumping everything together under the <abbr> element and
using <ruby> as supplement; he proposes replacing <abbr> with <ruby>.

I stand corrected (thanks, Chaals). I don't know enough about ruby to
have anopinion.  So I'll shut up.
John


Roberto:
Here seems that IE don't support <abbr>....
http://www.newsgoat.com/2003/07/09/1638/


At now, if the short form is a pronounceable word, the ACRONYM element
should be used instead of ABBR. How will be if all will be done with
abbr?
Some short forms, such as "SQL" and "URL," are pronounced as words by
some but pronounced letter-by-letter by others. In such cases, the ABBR
element should be favored over ACRONYM.

So there is the need to separate, like in aureal CSS:

Also, at now in the aural stylesheet we use this:

abbr {speak:spell-out;}
acronym {speak:normal;}

Any ideas?
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 10:20:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT