W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Regarding the <abbr> tag

From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:35:38 +0000
Message-ID: <479E207A.200@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com wrote:

> (For your example, the QUT would 
> likely make sense when read, but need to be spelled out completely on a 
> braille output device, because braille presents acronyms - like QUT - 
> and abbreviations differently.)

Wesley, could you clarify how "QUT" qualifies as
an acronym ?  Using the definition of Garland Cannon
(Texas A&M University) in his paper "Abbreviations and
Acronyms in English Word-Formation", published in
/American Speech/, Vol. 64, No. 2. (Summer, 1989),
pp. 99-127 [1] : "an artificial word created by eliding
the first one or two letters of each word in a phrase
so as to yield a pronounceable whole", which I think
is pretty much what most regard as an acronym, it
is difficult to see how "QUT" qualifies.  With
the "U" used up to form the [KW] sound, there
is no remaining vowel to indicate what should be
sounded between [KW] and [T].

Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 18:35:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:25 UTC