- From: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:44:20 +0000
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
- Message-Id: <2AB3A86D-6AC0-4034-8224-CD8608D4D30B@nickshanks.com>
On 10 Jan 2008, at 22:10, David Woolley wrote: > Nicholas Shanks wrote: > >> This reflects my usage: >> <acronym> Abbreviations that are acronyms (as per previous defn.) >> <abbr class="initialism"> Abbreviations like FBI, BBC >> <abbr class="truncation"> Abbreviations like cont. defn. etc. > > You've changed your definitions! The ones you now use are the ones > I understand to be most correct English, and appear consistent with > the OED definition of acronym. > > However, you started by saying: > > <http://www.w3.org/mid/B9E3D03F-7FD1-4A3C-A552-72ACCCE29E68@nickshanks.com > > > * acronym: an abbreviation of a phrase constructed from the initial > * letters of its constituent words. I suppose I meant to add "that are pronounced as words". It was a clarification error in the first email, my definitions haven't changed. Sorry for the confusion! As you say, it is a confusing topic. > That makes BBC an acronym, no, it's an initialism, by my terms. > which you also backed up by criticizing the BBC for using different > capitalization for BBC and Nato. Not correct. I was criticising them for not using "N<small-caps>asa</ small-caps>" and using "NASA" or "Nasa" both of which I feel are inferior as they loose the meaning small-caps convey. That was independent of whether they use FBI or F.B.I. (the common choices for initialisms. BBC is invariably rendered without full stops. - Nicholas.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 18:44:47 UTC