- From: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:15:35 -0600 (CST)
- To: <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote: > Then, whether it's an acronym or an > abbreviation, doesn't really matter. We have, e.g., <em> and <strong> and the differences between the two seem less clear than the difference between <acronym> and <abbr>. That is, there is a clear time to use an acronym and an abbr according to a particular definition, while the line between emphasis and strong is very fuzzy. While an acronym may be a type of abbreviation, an abbreviation is not a type of acronym. It might not matter practically, but it does matter semantically (or grammatically if not semantically). > I don't find the difference between abbreviations and acronym important > enough to maintain it in a technical standard as HTML. Thus, I suggest > both be replaced with a single element: > > <short> That's a fine idea. Basically, what you've done is thrown out both specific meanings in favor of an equally easy to type element. You've made it very generic, and not used a term that is already tied to a specific grammatical idea. Both are "short versions of longer terms." If this change were made, I'd have little to argue about. I could accept the "short" tag. > When having both causes definition problems, I'd say it's a problem. It's only a problem if the author doesn't know the definition of the term. Ignorance is the problem, not the two elements. But, as I said before, it's difficult to find clear, non-conflicting definitions. So, I shouldn't expect much. A "short" element is much less irritating to figure out proper usage. -- Robert <http://robertdot.org>
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:02:32 UTC