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

Re: ABBR vs ACRONYM, round 57894174803 [a tirade]

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:33:47 -0000
Message-ID: <009101c08fe5$77132500$a1da93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> The HTML/XHTML recommendations are wrong about
> acronyms.

And we are stuck with them: for now. The basic text module is required, and
has the same definition as the equivalent elements in HTML 4.01. Fixes?
There aren't any, unless you use modularization to create an <acro> element
for your own use, and then give it an RDFS comment in the namespace... but
what's the point? Just wait for XHTML 2.0 whan this will all be fixed
(read: it had better be fixed.....).

Anyway, this isn't all that important. Until XHTML 2.0 comes around, one
can use <abbr> or <acronym> however one sees fit to do so; but note that
IE5 expands <abbr> titles, and not <acronym> title, as Bruce pointed out.

--
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 21:35:44 GMT

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