W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2007

Re: abbr and acronym

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:42:42 +0100
Message-ID: <20070326154242.4o61745wj7cw000g@www.splintered.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

Quoting Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>:

>   True. However, unless we actually /structurally/ differentiate between
>   an acronym and an abbreviation there is no way that any browser can
>   render them differently, aurally or otherwise.
>   There is no conceivable point - save to be politically correct -
>   involved in removing elements that HAS semantic interpretation from a
>   markup language. Adding them is useful. Removing them far less so.

I'm having a brain-freeze at the moment, but: are there any other  
cases in HTML where we have a generic and a specific element, where  
the specific is a subset of the generic? My main gripe would simply be  
that, by doing this, we have two semantically correct ways of marking  
things up, one just more specific than the other. Should a  
specialisation of an element be a new element, or a (standardised)  
refinement of a generic one?

I'll throw another question in: are acronyms language-specific? i.e.  
is the idea of "needs to be pronounceable" dependent on the language?

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
Received on Monday, 26 March 2007 14:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:01 UTC