- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 06:49:05 -0400
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <geoffers@gmail.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > Surely this is truly an aural CSS issue, not an HTML one? We already > have the "speak" property, and the "spell-out" value reads it how > letter by letter. Agreed. CSS could have an aural property to handle whether or not the term is spelled out verbally or pronounced. Adding a bunch of attributes with values like "initials" and "spelled-out" will just be confusing to most web developers, and it's hard enough getting lazy web developers to use <abbr> and <acronym> on their abbreviations and acronyms anyways. > I do, however, agree that there is little point in having <abbr> and > <acronym> – the difference between the two isn't completely clear, > and is often got wrong. I think that has more to do with previous versions of Internet Explorer supporting only <acronym> and not <abbr> than people getting the two confused. Quite frankly, anyone who didn't flunk high school English should know the difference. > UAs for the sake of backwards compatibility > should support both, but I see little reason in retaining this > unclarity in a future spec. For backwards compatibility, it should be in the specification, but it can be deprecated. I think the argument should be about its deprecation and not its elimination. Personally, if there's an <acronym> element, I'd probably use it for acronyms, but it's not going to break my heart if it gets phased out.
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 10:48:29 UTC