[html4all] Fwd: ACRONYM and ABBR

[Robert J Burns]

Another thing I meant to say in this message about ABBR and ACRONYM is  
that for the example Leif gave, the HTML5 recommendation (and any  
other recommendation where it's relevant) should be pushing UAs to  
include such dictionaries to get the pronunciation of acronyms right  
(even when not marked up). The other thing that occurs to me after  
Leif raises the issue again is that a dramatic step that might drive  
home the point that authors should only markup abbreviations and  
acronyms in exceptional circumstances would be to deprecate both  
elements (ABBR and ACRONYM) and advise authors to use DFN for marking  
up the defining instance of any term, including exceptional  
abbreviations or acronyms requiring such definition.

Take care,
Rob

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert J Burns <rob at robburns.com>
> Date: April 24, 2008 12:25:45 PM GMT+02:00
> To: HTML4All <list at html4all.org>
> Subject: Re: [html4all] ACRONYM and ABBR
> Reply-To: HTML4All <list at html4all.org>
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> One view is that no @title means that the abbreviaiton is an
>> acronym. [1]
>>
>> However, when I tested VoiceOver and Fire Vox, it turned out that
>> ACRONYM and ABBR elements were read the same way. Thus, NATO was read
>> Enn,Ay,Tee,Oh.
>>
>> Which leads me to assume that acronyms are not read as acronyms
>> anyhow,
>> and thus AT users are happy with acronyms being marked up as ABBR.
>> Right?
>
> Something like NATO should be pronounced by AT as "Nay - tow" whether
> or not it is marked up with ABBR of ACRONYM. Pronunciations like that
> should be drawn from a pronunciation dictionary for the product (in
> the same way word processors have spelling dictionaries). ABBR should
> be reserved for either abbreviations not widely used or newly coined
> abbreviations. In such cases more information than simply pronouncing
> it as a word is needed (is "Nah - two" or "Nat - oh" or "Nay - toe",
> etc.). The wiki proposal I drafted with the cooperation of others
> provides the needed hooks for that[1]
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Jason White 24-04-2008 06:06:
>> [...]
>>>> It would be better to have only one element, as then the
>>>> interminable
>>>> disagreements and confusions surrounding the acronym/abbreviation
>>>> distinction
>>>> are eliminated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True.
>>
>> Agreed. However, If support was better for <acronym> then I think it
>> is
>> a fine useful element.
>
> I think the problem Jason refers to here is not related to support for
> ACRONYM. They problem is that the distinction between acronyms and
> abbreviations is not great enough to warrant separate elements. It
> would be better to simply markup unusual abbreviated forms and then
> provide pronunciation hints which is the only significant semantic
> distinction an author wants to make here.
>
>>> Which leads me to assume that acronyms are not read as acronyms
>>> anyhow,
>>> and thus AT users are happy with acronyms being marked up as ABBR.
>>> Right?
>>
>> I think so. It is mostly nerds who get in a flap about such things.
>>
>
> Agreed, which is why I don't think we need to continue having separate
> elements.
>
> Take care,
> Rob
>
> [1]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DefiningTermsEtc>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List_HTML4all.org mailing list
> https://www.html4all.org/wiki

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wilbur.bytowninternet.com/pipermail/list_html4all.org/attachments/20080425/b4a8bb58/attachment.html