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

RE: ABBR vs ACRONYM, round 57894174803

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:25:25 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LPBBIBHMFONPBODMLDAOCEPEDBAA.emmanuelle@teleline.es>
Hi,

It is natural that people feel confused regarding the correct use of <ABBR>
and of <ACRONYM> since the examples used to explain to it contain errors,
for example in:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/text.html#edef-ABBR

<ABBR title = World Wide Web">WWW </ABBR>
  <ABBR lang = " fr "
        title = Soci&eacute;t&eacute; Nationale gives Chemins of Fer">
     SNCF
  </ABBR>
  <ABBR lang = it is title = Do&ntilde;a">Do&ntilde;a </ABBR>
  <ABBR title = Abbreviation">abbr.</ABBR>

Both first (WWW and SNCF) they are acronyms and "Do&ntilde;a" it is a word
in Spanish, it is not neither an abbreviation neither an acronym,, if they
want to give an example in Spanish of abbreviation they can use: "Ud.",
abbreviation of "Usted" (third person of the singular) or "Sra." that it is
the abbreviation of "Se&ntilde;ora" ("Mrs." in English)

In many documents of the World Wide Web Consortium is marked "W3C" as
abbreviation and it is not it, it is an acronym, at least in Spanish it is
an acronym.

I don't dominate English, like it is evident, but I can assure that in
Spanish the difference between an abbreviation and an acronym is clear and
its functions and senses are not interchangeable for what is important that
these two elements stay.

Greetings,

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Coordinadora del SIDAR
E-mail: coordina@sidar.org <mailto:coordina@sidar.org>
URL: http://www.sidar.org
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
¡Colabora!
Campaña de recogida de firmas por una Internet Accesible para TODOS
http://www.sidar.org/firmas/
-----Mensaje original-----
De: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]En
nombre de Kynn Bartlett
Enviado el: lunes, 05 de febrero de 2001 17:05
Para: Bailey, Bruce
CC: 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'; 'sean@mysterylights.com'
Asunto: ABBR vs ACRONYM, round 57894174803


At 07:10 AM 2/5/2001 , Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>Okay, I'm confused!  The result of one of those "thousand times before"
>discussion lead me quite clearly to understand that, in actual practice,
the
>ONLY difference between ABBR and ACRONYM is that the latter should be read
>(mentally, or out loud) as a word and that the former should be spelled
out.

That's what common sense might tell you, but read the HTML 4.01
spec; it's not how the spec defines (by implication) the difference.

According to HTML 4.01 specification (with appropriate interpretation):

* ABBR is a general-purpose tag for indicating a shortened version
   of textual content, of any kind.  For example, it's fair to
   label <ABBR title="abbreviation">ABBR</ABBR> ("ABBR" is an
   abbreviated form of abbreviation), as well as <ABBR
   title="World Wide Web">WWW</ABBR> ("WWW" is an abbreviated form
   of World Wide Web.)

   Examples of "abbreviations" from the 4.01 specifications:
   - WWW
   - HTTP
   - M.
   - Inc.
   - et al.
   - etc.
   - SNCF
   - Do&ntilde;a
   - abbr.

* ACRONYM is a specific type of abbreviated form; it is (apparently)
   intended to mark up initialisms -- words formed from the first
   (or first few) letters of a string of words.  There is no
   requirement that these be pronounced "as words" instead of "as
   strings of letters."

   Examples of "acronyms" according to HTML 4.01:

   - GmbH
   - NATO
   - F.B.I.

* The ABBR and ACRONYM elements do _not_ imply any specific
   pronunciations; this is clearly stated in the HTML 4.01 spec as
   follows:

   "Note that abbreviations and acronyms often have idiosyncratic
    pronunciations. For example, while "IRS" and "BBC" are typically
    pronounced letter by letter, "NATO" and "UNESCO" are pronounced
    phonetically. Still other abbreviated forms (e.g., "URI" and "SQL")
    are spelled out by some people and pronounced as words by other
    people. When necessary, authors should use style sheets to specify
    the pronunciation of an abbreviated form."

So what are the implications of this?

1.  ABBR is more general and less confusing.
2.  ACRONYM really should be INITIAL.
3.  The distinction between "abbreviated form" and "initialism" is
     not useful in any meaningful way.
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.

--Kynn

Kynn Bartlett
Sr. Engineering Product Leader
Team Edapta
Reef North America
Tel +1 909-674-5225
___________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
___________________________________
http://www.reef.com
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 17:32:23 GMT

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