- From: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 17:22:33 +0300
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph@paeper.de>, www-html@w3.org
Just noticed the letter went just to you Cristoph, thus posting it again for the archive. Christoph, please ignore. --- Hello Christoph, everyone, >>> 8.1. The abbr element >>> Should the title attribute be used for the spelt out version of the > enclosed >>> term, e.g. for aural UAs, or does it need an extra attribute? I sometimes >>> want to provide also the translation of an abbreviation, but if I put it >>> into the title attribute, a speech synthesizing browser might read both, > but >>> shan't. Example: <abbr title="id est" replace="that is">i. e.</abbr>. > Actually "alt" was introduced for such tasks back when img was still around. Well, the lines you quoted here are actually *yours* :) >> I'd say this is not a good solution. It's the task of aural UAs to >> generate the correct pronounciation. [...] >> <abbr title="id est" xml:lang="la">i. e.</abbr> > That's what I use with XHTML 1.x now. "i.e." is a common abbreviation in > English that could be spoken out as "that is" or "id est" either way and > should be understood by most people, thus was a bad example. But my main > point is, that I use title on other elements for different tasks than > providing a substitute. It's inconsequent to use it as such on abbr. I quite agree, but then what you need is to rename the attribute, not to add another one. > New example (in German): > <p xml:lang="de">Die <abbr xml:lang="en" title="Organization of Petrol > Exporting Countries" alt="Organisation Erdöl exportierender Länder">>OPEC</abbr> hat eine Verringerung der Erdölfördermenge > beschlossen.</p> > Although you'd probably rather read "Opeck", but how does a aural UA know > that this is actually an acronym, i.e. an abbreviation / initialism that's > spelled as one single word? Now you employed 'alt'. How can a UA know the 'alt' is in German? Well, you would say that the <p>'s language shows that. Let's look at the XML1SE more closely [1]: "A special attribute named xml:lang may be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents >>>and attribute values<<< of any element in an XML document." What about specifying the actual prounounciation, please consult [2]. > Or imagine abbreviations whose actual meaning is different from the word(s) > you use to substitute it normally: > <abbr title="Union of Socialist Soviet Republics" alt="Soviet Union">>USSR</abbr> > Although you might spell it "Yoo, Es, Es, Ar" as well. I guess most people actually spell "U S S R". If you pronounce "Soviet Union" I suggest you use <abbr title="Soviet Union">SU</abbr> in the text. > My sole point is that there should be put some more thought into abbr. I disagree and invite you to look at the "i. e." example once again. It fits you pretty well (imo). >> Another example: whenever a clever aural UA comes across >> <abbr title="et cetera" xml:lang="la">etc.</abbr> in the text it >> pronounces "and so on" for an English user, "und so weiter" for you, >> and "i tak daleye" for me. On the other hand if we had set it not to >> change the native pronounciation we all would hear "et cetera". > Actually I'd expect "und so weiter" from <abbr>usw.</abbr> but "et cetera" > from <abbr>etc.</abbr>, at least in German. A matter of taste ;) >>> 8.4. The code element >> >> As for me I see no use for the <pre> element. Poems could be marked >> with <l>s, while pieces of computer code with <code> and appropriate >> style rules. > How to mark-up excerpts from RFCs or Usenet articles, which are written in > well defined, fixed width plain text? Or poems that require certain letters > at certain positions (there are some which create some kind of ASCII art, if > written correctly)? > The need for pre is becoming less, but it's still there. I don't think so. If you really need those ascii-poems or passages from some other fixed-width source use paragraphs and CSS. Even if you make an excerpt from RFC non-fixed you lose nothing. It's just their style, not their semantics. >>> 9.1. The a element >> >> I wonder if the WG would dare to remove the <a> element. Three (3) >> elements carrying no semantics and having the same purpose is >> excessive. I'm talking about <div>, <span> and <a>. > Or at least require the id attribute to resemble its original meaning > "anchor". Or remove span instead and say the a stands for -er- something > different than "anchor". >>> 10. XHTML List Module >> >>> name ist not only a bad choice, > According to > <http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/voyager-issues/XHTML-2.0?id=6196> it's > been renamed to label, already, but wasn't changed in the latest published > WD. Reminds me of the form elements. Not a good choice either. >>> Why not use h or caption instead? >> >> Or why not make it an attribute of <nl>? > No. Text to be displayed shouldn't be content of an attribute, but an > element itself. Thus it's even visible after minimal XML parsing, i.e. tag > removal. Why that? I guess everyone agrees that <name> is too ambigious. However making it <h> as I see would make it even more confusing. I presume a good idea is to take your <caption> suggestion both for lists (instead of <label>) and for objects. Links: [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-lang-tag [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/aural.html#speaking-props Regards, --- Alexander "Croll" Savenkov http://www.thecroll.com/ w3@hotbox.ru http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Sunday, 22 December 2002 05:46:33 UTC