W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques Draft

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:34:37 -0500
Message-ID: <003301c3c0bd$138808a0$6401a8c0@handsontech>
To: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>, <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>, <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

we are all human and I'd venture that many people have not plummed the
depths of the archives.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
To: <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>; <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>;
<www-html@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques

Is this a forum to discuss WAI issues?  Is there some limit to how many
times an issue may be raised?  What I see regularly are new memebers to this
forum.  For them and I, this is the first time this issue has been raised.
Rather than questioning why an issue is repeated, perhaps it would be more
productive and a bit less intimidating to simply share the information many
of the members appear to have on given topics.  If a topic has been
exhaustivly examined in the past, it should be fairly easy for the more
experienced members to list the relevant points thus minimizing the need for
multiple emails on "old" topics.

If we want to improve accessibility, should we question or belittle those
asking questions?

Kurt Mattes
Application Development Analyst-Lead Developer
(302) 282-1414

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer [mailto:Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:02 AM
To: David Woolley; www-html@w3.org; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques

Hash: SHA1


Am Freitag, 12. Dezember 2003 07:39 schrieb David Woolley:
> > ¥ 1970; english. acronym Ç word composed with Initials or syllabs or
> >
> > <ABBR title="World Wide Web">WWW</ABBR>
> >
> > is wrong :) WWW is Acronym, not abbr...
> No, because WWW is not a word, as it is not pronounceable in English.
This has been discussed last year and the year before and the year before...

It is *not* a requirement for an acronym to be pronouncable as word, at
not for the languages German and English. That's a common misunderstanding.
Even I thought so...

Also, an acronym always is an abbreviation, while an abbreviation is not
always an acronym.

I think you all might find this thread quite interesting:

I did more research on the abbreviation vs. acronym topic.
And I finally agree with Steven Pemberton.

An acronym must be a word, yes.
But that word needn't necessarily be pronouncable. It's enough that we treat
it as if it were a word. That's what differs Radar, Laser, XML, SCSI, DSSSL
and WWW from e.g..

> This is a fairly common repeat topic on these lists.
Quite unnecessary, this has all been discussed before and I thought the
discussion was closed long before, without a reason to reopen it ;-)

My point:
- - since acronyms aren't neccessarily pronouncable, it's required to differ
between acronyms and abbreviations for speech browsers; a separate, e.g.
class based scheme is required anyway, since for <abbr title="for
example">e.g.</abbr> you'd might want to make an exception from the rule to
speak the title and want to spell out the element content instead. So you'd
need at least three classes to be implemented in an aural stylesheet:
* spell out element content
* read title
* read element content

- - the semantic value of marking up an abbreviation that is an acronym
different from those abbreviation that aren't is very very little, for me it
even has no value at all; I'd rather wish for a <person/> element than for a
differentiation between those abbreviations that are acronyms and those that

- - Also, for transformations with XSLT <acronym/> gives no extra value.
Expanding <abbr>e.g.</abbr> and <acronym>Laser</acronym> using a database
works all the same.

So differing between those two kinds of abbreviations that are acronyms and
that aren't isn't that important at all, I think. So I vote for dropping
<acronym/> (XHTML 2.0 probably does so).

I think the WAI HTML Techniques Draft should state that it's important to
markup abbreviations at all, but it's not so important to markup those
special abbreviations that are acronyms as such.

Also I suggest that abbreviations are always marked up, not just the first
time, maybe the title can be given only the first time.

- -- 
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)


This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 09:38:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC