Re: Question on abbreviations (fwd)

Matt,

	You say you could build a dictionary for Netscape in an afternoon. But
none exists now. First question is why? Do you really think it's more
efficient to have a dictionary on every machine intead of central
dictionaries located on the web? I disagree, strongly. First of all people
don't always use the same computer all the time, and secondly, there may be
more than one user on any given machine. As one who has taught her share of
high school English classes over the years, I truly shudder at the idea of
all users creating their own dictionaries. If you think it's a lot of work
for content providers with large caches of content to clean up their stuff,
imagine the work load of all users building their own web dictionaries. 

>> It may be that news sources (AP style or cavalier!) will
>> discover/invent a new "style" system to use on the web ...
>
>That's all well and good, but I don't think creating a style guide is within
>our charter, nor should it be.

Matt, I didn't say the WAI would invent a new "style" system, that isn't
our job. We need only to set the basic rules that will be incorporated in
whatever new style rules the industry comes up with. It should be pretty
obvious to anyone who thinks about it that AP style, which expands a term
the first time it is encountered, isn't going to work on the web since that
"first time" slides out of view as you scroll down. Scrolling up and down a
document while reading it should be minimized, so the terms have to be
expanded wherever they occur. 

My thought is that the content providers should be responsible for content,
whether it's linearizing tables, defining unique terms or illustrating
their concepts and/or alt tagging the non-text portions of the content.
It's all part of the package of what the content provider should be doing. 

							Anne

Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 08:38:02 UTC