<abbr> = <acronym>?

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt wrote:

What about those who do know the shortened version, but not the full?
There are people who make web pages who don't know what "html"
stands for.

That may be so but they probably perfectly understand the message on that
page.

Why is that an either/or proposition?

Well, I was just wondering what is is we are trying to achieve. If it is a
better understanding for the visitor, adding the full expression doesn't add
so much (and sometimes is even confusing).

Nico

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Wrong! Neither Usa nor UK is a word.

I never said they were: merely that some people would class them as
acronyms.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Wrong! Neither Usa nor UK is a word.

It depends. "Usa", especially when written that way, is sometimes read as a
word in Finnish texts, though this is somewhat colloquial and reading it
letter by letter is more official. In this sense, there would be a difference
between <abbr>Usa</abbr> and <acronym>Usa</acronym> as hints to speech
synthesizers - but the two elements have been so messed up that it would be
impractical for programs to treat them that way. Imagine a program trying to
deal with <acronym>HTML</acronym> - such markup is probably used by many
people who understand <acronym> their way, and the IE way. (Incidentally,
where I live, "HTML" _is_ often read as a word, though with schwa-like vowels
after each consonant, roughly as you might read "huh-tuh-muh-luh". )

 

[JustAnotherGuy]

But the important question is really whether you should use _either_ of these
elements. What do you wish to achieve? There seems to be a school of though
that regards such markup as a _replacement_ for explaining your abbreviations
and acronyms in normal text. That way, those elements could actually work
_against_ accessibility.

Hmm--you could level the same critique at the title attribute (of the
link, img, etc. tags), but it remains rather useful, wouldn't you think?

 

[JustAnotherGuy]

What could be the advantage for a visitor?? Everybody knows what is meant by
USA as well as radar.
I even think 'radar' is more meaningful for an average person than 'Radio
Detection And Ranging'.
Nico

What about TLAs?

Three letter acronyms like W3C, FUD (which someone else mentioned), B2B,
FIR (I think the police use that terminology, but in web design it might
refer to an image replacement techqnique--such a tag would clarify) etc.
Lots of disciplines employ cryptic acronyms which basically stand for
something simple. Plus if the visitor is really curious about the
meaning they can look the whole thing up--you don't have to write up
meanings for *everything*. Like FLT to mention fermet's last theoram, on
a math weblog.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

"Nico Schuyt" wrote in

How about FUD?

Not everyone knows what FUD is but everyone knows what it means when
written out in full (Fear Uncertainty Doubt)

*Nobody* knows what FUD is. So, if you publish an article about that subject
you should start with an explanation what 'Fear Uncertainty Doubt' is and
tell the visitors you will refer to it as 'FUD' in the rest of the article.
Cheers, Nico

 

[JustAnotherGuy]

*Nobody* knows what FUD is. So, if you publish an article about that subject
you should start with an explanation what 'Fear Uncertainty Doubt' is and
tell the visitors you will refer to it as 'FUD' in the rest of the article.
Cheers, Nico

You're looking too narrowly here. What about comments on a weblog? They
can be marked-up server side, but the commentor won't take time to
explain all their abbreviations.

I'm sure there are other examples where HTML is published QUICKLY.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt wrote:

You're looking too narrowly here. What about comments on a weblog?
They can be marked-up server side, but the commentor won't take time
to explain all their abbreviations.
I'm sure there are other examples where HTML is published QUICKLY.

Of course. In alt.fud.org there's probably no need to explain the FUD
either. But what I'm trying to explain is that the full text of the
abbreviation often adds little to the comprehension of a visitor. Sometimes
it's even more confusing than the full text.
Nico

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:00:47 +0100, Nico Schuyt is reported to
have stated:

*Nobody* knows what FUD is.

My newsreader does.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

*Nobody* knows what FUD is.

I knew.

 

[Michael Bauser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What could be the advantage for a visitor?? Everybody knows what is
meant by USA as well as radar.

It's a world-wide web. Never assume your reader is reading in his
native language. Acronyms and abbreviations can a be a lot trickier
for non-native readers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP9lP6XKbhCU9m6R7EQLMUACg/zuZimvDnZYMv35SHP1xQdyfzagAn2US
4d8FkmBzTf7HuLWtb12sKzrQ
=sUcC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Michael Bauser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

As an aside, it is believed that the <acronym/> element was slipped
into the HTML 4.0 specification as an April Fools' Day joke. If you
check the HTML 4.0 (not 4.01) spec, you'll see it was published on
1 April 1997.

That belief is based on an objectively incorrect "fact" -- "acronym"
was part of HTML well before 1 April 1997. It's in the HTML 3.0
specification:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/logical.html

The "Last Modified" date on that page is 18 February 1995. The draft
expired 28 September 1995.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP9lR2HKbhCU9m6R7EQISdQCgmP88S5FF3QDc6HfkeV5Qc1W3MFkAoI6D
WCf7ksLM9y+vfNjR7qXuE+08
=5tVA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Michael Bauser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_17_defining_acronyms.html
"Several fellow markup-obsessed gurus have correctly pointed out
that there is an <abbr> tag for abbreviations. Unfortunately, no
version of Internet Explorer for Windows supports it; no tooltips
show up at all. Use <acronym>."

That just strikes me as patently stupid advice: Use mark-up we *all*
know is wrong just because Microsoft tells us to? **** that. It will
only encourage them to screw things up more. Use the correct mark-up,
and make *them* play catch-up with the competition's (better) user
agents.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP9lS3nKbhCU9m6R7EQLFOgCeNFUs9AOEChnkgXwsJRES0HKSqYUAnjgz
5ReivMkZjwkVvBg3wtEUR1Sp
=NhIc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Toby A Inkster]

That belief is based on an objectively incorrect "fact" -- "acronym"
was part of HTML well before 1 April 1997.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Hmm--you could level the same critique at the title attribute (of
the link, img, etc. tags), but it remains rather useful, wouldn't
you think?

It remains useful when used to give an optional hint, without relying
on its conveying its message. For example, in <a href> it tells in
advance what to expect. When used in <img>, it's more debatable. If it
contains relevant information, it will be missed by some people -
actually, most, since there's normally no indication of that info being
available, unless you happen to move the mouse and accidentally see the
text. If it contains no relevant information, why is it there?

Actually, this relates to abbr and acronym since those tags have little
or no effect without a title attribute.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

- - "acronym"
was part of HTML well before 1 April 1997.

No, it wasn't.

It's in the HTML 3.0 specification:

There never was an HTML 3.0 specification, despite the odd phenomenon
that browser vendors claimed HTML 3 conformance years after the HTML 3
draft had expired (and naturally without even trying to implement its
features).

The "Last Modified" date on that page is 18 February 1995. The draft
expired 28 September 1995.

Indeed. So it was a draft, not a specification, and anything that was
there was _not_ part of HTML by its being there.

Similarly, the <border> tag isn't part of (X)HTML, despite being
defined in the XHTML 3.0 draft, which has _not_ expired, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/xhtml3.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

I wonder why people never use PGP when it might be of some use, like
confidential E-mail, but use it where it can play no useful role, like
Usenet. Just don't PGP in public, mm'kay?

 

[Michael Bauser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

No, it wasn't.


There never was an HTML 3.0 specification, despite the odd phenomenon
that browser vendors claimed HTML 3 conformance years after the HTML 3
draft had expired (and naturally without even trying to implement its
features).

OK, OK, you got me there, sort of -- I *should* have said it was
draft specification, and I *should* phrased it better, like "acronym'
appeared in the development process before April 1 1997".

But I don't see what I have to do Microsoft's marketing antics, and
either way, it doesn't undermine the basic premise of my post, which
is that "acronym" is older than the previous poster said it was.

So thanks for making a big deal out of nearly nothing.

I wonder why people never use PGP when it might be of some use, like
confidential E-mail, but use it where it can play no useful role, like
Usenet. Just don't PGP in public, mm'kay?

I wonder why people who don't use PGP try to tell me how or why I
should use it.

PGP *does* have a useful role in Usenet. Identity- and
persona-verification are still valid concepts in a public space.
Signed messages prove (to other PGP users) that all the messages
labeled "From Michael Bauser" are coming from the same person.

There's also non-repudiation issues. Clearsigning means I can't "take
back my words" by saying somebody hacked an account or altered a
message, because I'm the only person who has my private key.

Public key encryption isn't *always* about keeping secrets.
Sometimes, it's about keeping people honest.

And thanks, also, for giving me a chance to talk about the issues. It
reminded me that I needed to upgrade PGP anyway.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.7.96rc1

iD8DBQE/6rDwcpuEJT2bpHsRAoXNAJ92IXEGErKrUZLhIdMnNtNngI/wFwCfbJBS
cHB120PRCxVuEhP9fZIQ20I=
=jXxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Mark Parnell]

So thanks for making a big deal out of nearly nothing.

LOL. Welcome to Usenet.