- From: Craig Saila <crsaila@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:47:49 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 3/26/07, Matt Freels wrote: > I myself like the idea of using class, as it then doesn't have to be > part of the spec. instead there could be a reccomendation to content > authors wishing to further divide <abbr> to use class and aural css > markup (Was this original intent of suggesting using the class > attribute with <abbr>?) This also has the benefit of being completely > compatible with the existing spec, for what it's worth. I've been following these threads quiet closely as the <abbr>/<acronym> thing is a bit of a personal hobby horse. Deprecating/removing <acronym> is something I'd strongly endorse for the reason most have mentioned here (e.g., an acronym is a kind of abbreviation). In addition, suggesting end users rely on an /optional/ attribute to further narrow its semantic meaning is sensible (again for the reasons mentioned, including CSS-level targetting). However, were we to do this, using "type" makes more sense from the spec-level, given its acceptable values are traditionally outlined within the recommendation (whereas authors are encouraged to use whatever valid value for "class"). Potential values: acronym (e.g., "radar"), initialism (e.g., "HTML"), and contraction (e.g., "Dr."). Other values could include: apheresis, aphesis, clipped, and blend or portmanteau. (Defined: <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t08.html>) The only real hurdle I've seen mentioned (aside from debates over what is/isn't an acronym) is that <abbr> is unsupported by Internet Explorer prior to version 7. Thankfully HTML 5 is not expected to be a recommendation for another three years (and there are JavaScript-based solutions to solve the IE>7 issues). -- Cheers, Craig Saila ------------------------------------------ http://www.saila.com/ ------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 04:18:29 UTC