- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:13:10 +0100
- To: "Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com" <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
Hi Becky On 15/09/05, Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com> wrote: <bockquote> In my search I found several online references that did not require that acronyms be pronounceable (maybe all of them use Webster's as a source, I didn't dig that deep). I actually prefer the more restrictive definition but the rest of team B did not necessarily agree with me :). And while I didn't want to explicitly call it out, IE support is an issue, by using the less restrictive definition of acronym authors can still mark acronyms up using IE until it gets fixed. I did think about adding a definition for initialisms but that term is not used with WCAG so I didn't want to introduce it. I agree that all acronyms are abbreviations and future proposals for GL 3.1 will suggest deprecating the HTML acronym technique in favor of just abbreviation (another proposal that I suspect will be controversial). Can you suggest an alternative definition? </blockquote> I think the definitions should accurately reflect the generally accepted meaning of the words, with the guide document illustrating (or linking to) advisory techniques, such as writing out in full any abbreviations in the main content the first time they're used, and marking up subsequent abbreviations using the appropriate element. Other techniques might suggest providing a glossary of abbreviations, or glossary of terms that include abbreviations used in the content. I definitely think the problem should be moved to techniques, rather than redefining words. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 21:13:15 UTC