W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: abbreviation title within a link: howto?

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@mi.madritel.es>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:03:36 +0200
Message-ID: <013001c201a1$db5fdb50$474225d5@emmanuelle1>
To: "Jukka Korpela" <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>, "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Here we will have a problem of internationalization.
If the explanation that gives Mr. Ben Meadowcroft is correct, it contradicts
the explanation and the form in that we understand the difference between
abbreviations and acrónimos, in Spanish, according to the Real Spanish
Academy of the Spanish Language in answer to a consultation that I made him:
http://209.204.223.237/abrvsacr.htm

For us the difference doesn't consist in if the abbreviation is pronounced
or not like a word. For us the difference rests in if we "translate" what
means, or not.

For example, in Spanish, "F.B.I." it is an acrónimo (We pronounce the
initials, we don't translate their meaning, maybe in English when somebody
finds that abbreviated form he/she reads: "Federal Bureau of
Investigation"). That which means that in the future it can have
difficulties to locate terms if some automatic system can make searches in
the net for acronyms and of abbreviations.

regards,
Emmanuelle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To: "Jukka Korpela" <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>; "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: abbreviation title within a link: howto?


At 02:36 AM 2002-05-22, Jukka Korpela wrote:

>Hence, before encourageing authors into using markup for abbreviations and
>acronyms, quite a lot of work with _defining_ them needs to be done, and
>this involves considering how the information in the markup would actually
>be used and how the uses might conflict. There's little hope before the
>specifications even define <abbr> and <acronym> reasonably with respect to
>each other; cf. to the analysis at
>http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/articles/abbr-vs-acronym.shtml

Good summary, good review of the topic.

One small wrinkle:

It is possible to do all that for a superclass that subsumes both of these.
There doesn't need to be a clear distinction between them to have adequately
defined constraints on what will happen with either.

But it could help.

One operational distinction that would seem to matter is a difference in
"TTS mode hint" that is 'speak' in one case and 'spell' in another case.

Al

>Joe Clark wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't bother. <abbr> and <acronym>, which are what you're
>> really getting at here, are useful only for *unfamiliar*
>> acronyms, - -
>
>On the practical side, I agree with your basic view. In addition to
problems
>with implementations, <abbr> and <acronym> markup was never _defined_
>semantically in a useful way that could form the basis for making use of
the
>markup in various programs, including browsers. There's little point in
>trying to persuade authors into using markup that lacks well-defined
meaning
>and that has unpredictable results.
>
>On the forward-looking side, or perhaps utopistically, I think that markup
>for familiar acronyms could be very useful, for accessibility and other
>purposes.
>
>> If you really, really insisted on doing this, you should use
>> <acronym title="learning disability">LD</acronym> inside <a></a>.
>> Presumably that would validate.
>
>Well, yes, it would, and nested <a> elements would not, in pre-XHTML HTML.
>(The "X" means, among other things, less expressive metalanguage, so that
>the prohibition to nest <a> elements needs to be said in prose for XHTML.)
>No, I don't see any particular reason why the prohibition to nest <a>
>elements was taken into HTML, but I digress.
>
>> One suspects that every reader of your page will know what "LD" means.
>
>Maybe, but some of them might not _remember_ it easily.
>
>Besides, a "reader" of the page could be an indexing robot, a speech-based
>browser, or an automatic translation program. Suppose I know English just a
>little and would benefit even from a relatively poor translation. (Lack of
>linguistic capabilities is a form of disability, in a sense.) If
>abbreviations were marked up, with their expansions, even very simple
>translation technology could produce better results in many cases; in this
>example, it could behave as if the expansion appeared in place of the
>abbreviation. Naturally, such strategy would easily lead into disaster too:
>translating "World Wide Web" word by word (and perhaps then forming an
>initialism from them!) would produce something rather incomprehensible.
>
>Hence, before encourageing authors into using markup for abbreviations and
>acronyms, quite a lot of work with _defining_ them needs to be done, and
>this involves considering how the information in the markup would actually
>be used and how the uses might conflict. There's little hope before the
>specifications even define <abbr> and <acronym> reasonably with respect to
>each other; cf. to the analysis at
>http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/articles/abbr-vs-acronym.shtml
>
>--
>Jukka Korpela
>TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehittämiskeskus ry
>Finnish Information Society Development Centre
>Salomonkatu 17 A, 10th floor, FIN - 00100 HELSINKI, FINLAND
>Phone: +358 9 4763 0397 Fax: +358 9 4763 0399
>http://www.tieke.fi  jukka.korpela@tieke.fi
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 11:07:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:04 GMT