- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:42:42 +0100
- 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? P -- 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 http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 26 March 2007 14:52:30 UTC