Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[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
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.