W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: ABBR vs ACRONYM, round 57894174803

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:23:40 -0000
Message-ID: <024b01c08fb1$b9a5ad40$01db93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> 4.  It's probably better to use ABBR and pretend as if ACRONYM
>      were deprecated since ABBR is general purpose and since
>      ACRONYM doesn't do what most people think it _should_ do.

Are there actually any practical (e.g. acessibility) reasons for using
<abbr> instead of <acronym>? As long as people can understand what the
phrase has been shortened from, they can probably work out for themselves
if it is an abbreviation or an acronym. Maybe using <span> would be better.

Am I joking, or what? Well, XHTML has a certain amount of semantics
attached to the elements... although a lot have been transfered over to
CSS. However, I think it is useful if some of the semantics were to remain
with the elements. Note that I am using the term "semantics" to include all
meaning: presentational as well.

Anyway, I don't think this is one of the most important XHTML topics, only
a very small part of one of the more larger debates (that of presentation
vs. content, which I'm not going to argue right now).

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 15:31:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT