- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:10:35 +0200 (EET)
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > So I don't > know if there is a standard english definition of the difference betgween > these two terms. I think this summarizes the situation rather well (though I don't know whether Chaals wrote it as the basic conclusion). There is no standard definition for "abbreviation" and "acronym" that anything in HTML could be built upon. Moreover, <abbr> markup is still ignored by the market leader, and even if the specifications were changed to say what <acronym> really means, many authors have used and would use it for pronounceable words. In a word, both <abbr> and <acronym> are useless on the Web, except perhaps in specialized applications. Anything one can achieve with them can be achieved using <span> (and CSS). Yes, it's less semantic, and that's good, since it's better to say nothing about semantics than to say something that will be interpreted one way half of the time and in a completely different way otherwise. Regarding WAI recommendations, I think all references to <abbr> and <acronym> should be removed. The guidelines should tell that any abbreviations, initialisms, special symbols, and technical notations used in a document should be suitably explained in a document, or in a linked document, except perhaps with very common expressions and expressions that can reasonably be expected to be understood by anyone who could benefit from the document. The serious thing is that WAI guidelines can be read as requiring that every abbreviation and acronym be marked up using <abbr> or <acronym>. (They don't even say whether all occurrences or just the first one should be marked up. Since browsers don't do anything with a string just because a preceding occurrence the same string was marked up somehow, the logical conclusion seems to be that all occurrences should be marked up.) Regarding HTML specifications, <abbr> and <acronym> would best be deprecated right now. XHTML 2.0 should introduce suitable new markup which distinguishes pronunciation information (if deemed relevant in HTML and not a purely presentation issue to be delegated to CSS) from semantic information. I would suggest <sym>, for "symbol", defined as indicating that the (inline) content is not to be taken as a normal word but as a symbol of some other kind, such as an abbreviation, initialism, special symbol, or code. But the new features to be introduced are less relevant now than stopping the pointless and confusing introduction of markup with poorly defined semantics and questionable implementations. (For some more arguments in favor of explaining abbreviations, acronyms, symbols, and notations, instead of using <abbr> and <acronym> markup, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/abbr.html ) -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2004 17:10:38 UTC