On 10 Jan 2008, at 22:10, David Woolley wrote: > Nicholas Shanks wrote: > >> This reflects my usage: >> <acronym> Abbreviations that are acronyms (as per previous defn.) >> <abbr class="initialism"> Abbreviations like FBI, BBC >> <abbr class="truncation"> Abbreviations like cont. defn. etc. > > You've changed your definitions! The ones you now use are the ones > I understand to be most correct English, and appear consistent with > the OED definition of acronym. > > However, you started by saying: > > <http://www.w3.org/mid/B9E3D03F-7FD1-4A3C-A552-72ACCCE29E68@nickshanks.com > > > * acronym: an abbreviation of a phrase constructed from the initial > * letters of its constituent words. I suppose I meant to add "that are pronounced as words". It was a clarification error in the first email, my definitions haven't changed. Sorry for the confusion! As you say, it is a confusing topic. > That makes BBC an acronym, no, it's an initialism, by my terms. > which you also backed up by criticizing the BBC for using different > capitalization for BBC and Nato. Not correct. I was criticising them for not using "N<small-caps>asa</ small-caps>" and using "NASA" or "Nasa" both of which I feel are inferior as they loose the meaning small-caps convey. That was independent of whether they use FBI or F.B.I. (the common choices for initialisms. BBC is invariably rendered without full stops. - Nicholas.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:36 GMT