Re: Question on abbreviations (fwd)

At 07:22 PM 12/27/2000 , Al Gilman wrote:
>But we need to hear (why) from the people who felt that expanding in all cases
>was onerous.  Seems like doing a search and replace to proliferate the
>expansion would not be that bad.

It's not really all that bad at all, I agree.  It does result in an
increase in file size, which can be very difficult to cope with in 
some browsing situations.

>Certainly, the guideline here expects intelligence from the UA that the format
>specifications generally do not provide.  

Agreed!  Question, what do the UAAG say about this issue?  I haven't
looked recently.  Perhaps this is entirely a UAAG issue and not a
WCAG issue at all.

>The issue about how burdensome it is to expand all instances means GL has a
>stake.

Only if you believe that WCAG WG should concern itself with how
burdensome something is. :)  [I happen to believe we should, but
I sometimes feel like I'm in the minority on that one.]

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta       http://www.reef.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML     http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
Unofficial Section 508 Checklist           http://kynn.com/+section508

Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 13:36:27 UTC