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

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

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:07:24 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010205200544.009fa920@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 07:56 PM 2/5/2001 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>As I have argued above, the specification may be deficient, but the element
>is potentially very useful.

Well, that's the point on which we all agree, so nothing more from
me on this topic -- I think we (or the PF group) should refer this
back to the HTML Working Group and ask them to correct the problem
they have generated, either by issuing an errata for HTML 4.01, or
by updating the elements in XHTML 2.0, or maybe both.

Until then, well, do whatever you like.  (I know _I_ certainly don't
give a damn -- this really is "tag trivia" and I should have known
better.)

--Kynn

Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Customer Management/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 23:05:04 GMT

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