W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: ABBR vs. ACRONYM

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:27:44 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000220122430.0197b8c0@mail.idyllmtn.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:48 GMT