- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:58:24 -0500 (EST)
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: Patrizia Bertini <patrizia@patriziabertini.it>, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Slow down a minute. From your own email it suggests that two self-proclaimed linguists are OK with the idea, and one is not... To be clearer about ruby, I am not suggesting it in addition, but that it be used instead of the abbr element, which could then quietly die out (based on the fact that you can transform any acronym/abbr element in existing HTML to XHTML 2 by putting them in a ruby element, giving them a default class, and then leting authors tweak them for different ways of pronouncing stuff... Or you could use a smart transformation - the sort of thing the UBAccess and WebThing do, to go from stuff where one instance is marked up using abbr to a more celanly marked up page, via the kind of mechanisms that are being mooted for dealing with vocabulary and grammar stuff. cheers Chaals On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John M Slatin wrote: > >I'm delighted to hear from Chaals and Richard that the linguists have no >objections to lumping acronyms and abbreviations together under a single >element <abbr>. If ruby is available as an additional option, so much >the better. Patrizia had written >>Not very well in fact... as a Linguist, i don't agree in this >>assimilation. [snip] >>is formally wrong to use only the abbr elemt, better to find out a >>third way IMVHO. >> >>M2p -- pat
Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 09:58:26 UTC