Re[3]: acronym/abbr expansion

Hello everyone, Gregory,

> the reason i neglected to mention ruby in my first post is that it suffers
> from the tree falling in the woods syndrome -- whom does it benefit if no 
> mainstream tools expose the markup?  (note that this is a recurrent problem 
> in the arena of accessibility -- a lot of really useful slash essential 
> markup exists, but few tools recognize, support, or expose it, although i 
> am glad to report that this seems to be slowly changing for the 
> better...  i write "slowly" because a lot of accessibility-oriented markup 
> was added to HTML4, and inherited by XHTML 1.0, and thus has been canonical 
> for quite some time, HTML4 having reached Rec status in 1998, while 
> HTML4.01 and XHTML1.0 became recommendations in 1999)
  Obviously. For this reason a simple anchor will do better.
  Furthermore, XHTML Basic is in XHTML 1.0 and I believe it's not
  reasonable to convert it to XHTML 1.1 to add ruby.

> as for practical solutions, i think your LINK suggestion quite elegant, and 
> would strongly encourage you to implement it, AS WELL AS adopting martin's 
> suggested markup for the ACRONYM itself...
  You may check this out at http://w3.hotbox.ru/TR/2000/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219
  The translation is linked to a large list of terms/abbreviations/acronyms at
  http://w3.hotbox.ru/TR/2000/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219/glossary.html
  Comments are welcome.

> was i correct in assuming that one of the reasons for marking the ACRONYM 
> with the xml:lang attribute is so that it is displayed in a latin, rather 
> than a cyrillic font?
  You definitely were. There's no such problem nowadays but it may
  emerge in the future (IMHO). Apart from this xml:lang helps screen
  readers to get the right pronunciation.

Thanks to everyone for the help.
Best wishes.
---
  Alexander "Croll" Savenkov         http://www.thecroll.com/
  w3@hotbox.ru                            http://croll.da.ru/

Received on Sunday, 5 May 2002 13:18:38 UTC