RE: proposed new definitions for abbreviation and acronym

Yesterday I asked Gez if Roberto's proposed solution for Guideline 3.1
Level 3 Success Criterion  (to make the SC read "A mechanism for finding
the expanded form of abbreviations" is available, with a note indicating
that both acronyms and initialisms are types of abbreviation) would
work:

John:
<blockquote>
This seems a cleaner solution than adding "initialisms" to the SC. The
Glossary would define all three terms (abbreviation, acronym,
initialism). The Guide would then point to appropriate general and
technology-specific techniques.
 
Gez, would this address your concerns?
</blockquote>

Tgez:
<q>Yes; my initial concern was only with the proposed definition.</q>

Thanks very much, Gez. I'll forward this to Team B, which is working on
proposals for GL 3.1.

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 1:59 PM
To: John M Slatin
Cc: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG); Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com;
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: proposed new definitions for abbreviation and acronym


Hi John,

On 17/09/05, John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
<blockquote> This seems a cleaner solution than adding "initialisms" to
the SC. The Glossary would define all three terms (abbreviation,
acronym, initialism). The Guide would then point to appropriate general
and technology-specific techniques.
 
Gez, would this address your concerns?
</blockquote>

Yes; my initial concern was only with the proposed definition.

Best regards,

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com

Received on Sunday, 18 September 2005 21:19:54 UTC