Hi Folks - I'm coming very cold to the discussion here, and am only reading my way into unAPI; so apologies in advance if I commit gross blunders!
I was initially very surprised to see the <abbr> pattern being used as it is in unAPI. I have now reviewed the original (?) discussion of this choice here: <http://old.onebiglibrary.net/yale/cipolo/gcs-pcs-list/2006-May/ 000855.html> As far as I can see, in that discussion, there was no mention of the conflict between the <abbr> pattern and web accessibility for users with disability (for whom the correct, semantic, use of <abbr> is potentially very important). I note that, at one stage in the original discussion above, this source was referenced: <http://microformats.org/wiki/abbr-design-pattern> Visiting that source *now*, there is a clear highlighting of the accessibility issue. However, briefly tracking back through the edit history, I'm believe that this was not present at the time of the unAPI discussion. In any case, I want to argue that this is *not* a small or trivial issue. See the detailed discussion here: <http://www.webstandards.org/2007/04/27/haccessibility/> So, my question is twofold: - Have I missed some more recent unAPI-specific discussion where this problem has already been addressed? - If not, I would like to suggest revisiting the original adoption of <abbr>. I recognise that it might be very painful to try to unpick this now; but, as things stand, it *seems* to me that the current spec could be a show stopper for at least some applications (but please correct me if I am mistaken). Best - Barry. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gcs-pcs-list" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gcs-pcs-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
