- From: Matthew Smith <matt@kbc.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:54:44 +0930
- To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi All From one post: > Recursive acronyms a la GNU's Not Unix are just downright evil. From another: > So...is the definition of - and the line between - acronym and > abbreviation blurred, or is it just me ? I'd just like to add my "two cents' worth" in here... 1) Recursive acronyms probably are not accessible - they are a form of "in joke" which, like other "in jokes" tend to make a sense to a limited audience. (I happen to like them, as befits one with a twisted mind ;-) 2) I've been watching the acronym vs. abbreviation debate for some time and in many different contexts. It seems that the majority of people are confused on the issue. I have, for some time, being working on the premise that an acronym should contain a vowel or pseudo-vowel to make the term sound like a "real" word. I have, therefore, probably been using the <abbr></abbr> element in many circumstances which would really warrant an <acronym></acronym>. What the hey, it's all just semantics <grin/> <acronym></acronym> and <abbr></abbr> both perform the same function, that is, they expand and explain the meaning of a term. The question that I now raise is: why do we have two terms with similar function which a) cause confusion as stated in my second point and b) would not appear to be adequate when dealing with recursive acronyms, as in my first point? Would it not be more appropriate, for a future version of (X)HTML, to have a single element, the function of which is to explain an abbreviation, acronym or whatever? Example: <term title="Extended three-letter acronym; this term is an in-joke in technology circles">ETLA</term> Cheers M -- Matthew Smith IT Consultant - KBC, South Australia KBC Web Site http://www.kbc.net.au PGP Public Key http://gpg.mss.cx
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 07:24:55 UTC