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

summary of (RE: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques Draft)

From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:15:31 -0500
Message-ID: <B8CDFB11BB44D411B8E600508BDF076C1A745BB1@usahm010.exmi01.exch.eds.com>
To: www-html@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

As I understand the recent posts:

(1)  <abbr> and <acronym> are currently misused, and cannot fully meet the
WAI requirements on their own.

(2)  Ruby can already do this in a technically correct way (or does it
violate one of the Ruby assumptions?)

(3)  Any three-part distinction (perhaps using Ruby, perhaps using read or
class attributes) would be closer, but probably won't be used in practice.
It would take too much space for hand-coders and too much thought for tools.

(4)  If this is more than presentational, then there may be more than three
possibilities -- perhaps we really need leave a link option.

Suggestion:  

We already have a glossary link type.

Use <term>word</term> to indicate that more information is available in that
glossary.  

Would it also be reasonable to define a glossary module?  (Which might
overlap with definition lists...)

<entry read="init">Term
	<def1 class=?>asflkj</def1>
	<def2 class=?>asdlkj</def2>
</entry>
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 18:15:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:13 GMT