- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:27:44 -0800
- To: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 12:26 PM 2/20/2000 , Ann Navarro wrote: >Hmmm. Would it be detrimental to encourage treatment of either as acronym >since some user agents apparently support acronyms where abbr is less >supported? I'd say that if we can't figure out why someone would want to use one or the other -- if they're effectively equivalent, do the same things, and can be used for the same types of content -- then one of them is redundant and should be tossed. Are they both redundant? What does ABBR or ACRONYM do that SPAN with TITLE doesn't? Would it be better to have a more generalized way of indicating alternate/expanded content for text, such as SPAN/TITLE, rather than the confusing specialized forms of ABBR/TITLE and ACRONYM/TITLE? I say confusing because obviously there's some disagreement -- even if in my own head -- about when they should be used, and specialized because they don't present a generic way to provide alternatives for textual content, but rather only in certain cases. -- Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2000 15:34:18 UTC