![]() |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] summary of (RE: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [techs] Latest HTML Techniques Draft)
From: Jewett, Jim J <jim.jewett@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:15:31 -0500 Message-ID: <B8CDFB11BB44D411B8E600508BDF076C1A745BB1@usahm010.exmi01.exch.eds.com> To: www-html@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org As I understand the recent posts: (1) <abbr> and <acronym> are currently misused, and cannot fully meet the WAI requirements on their own. (2) Ruby can already do this in a technically correct way (or does it violate one of the Ruby assumptions?) (3) Any three-part distinction (perhaps using Ruby, perhaps using read or class attributes) would be closer, but probably won't be used in practice. It would take too much space for hand-coders and too much thought for tools. (4) If this is more than presentational, then there may be more than three possibilities -- perhaps we really need leave a link option. Suggestion: We already have a glossary link type. Use <term>word</term> to indicate that more information is available in that glossary. Would it also be reasonable to define a glossary module? (Which might overlap with definition lists...) <entry read="init">Term <def1 class=?>asflkj</def1> <def2 class=?>asdlkj</def2> </entry>Received on Friday, 12 December 2003 18:15:38 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||