You are right Mordechai, but I think Ben was talking about “No.”, not
about “№”. In first case abbreviation is a good thing, in
second useless.
best regards,
Dmitry Baranovskiy
On 08/02/2007, at 9:32 AM, Mordechai Peller wrote:
Ben Buchanan wrote:
Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with
alt or title attributes.
I strongly disagree. All glyphs have an agreed upon meaning as
indicated by their context[1]. They are *NOT* abbreviations. Is a
capital sigma a glyph representing summation or a letter in the
Greek alphabet? And since all letters, numbers, punctuation, and
other related symbols are glyphs, what you're are proposing
(admittedly, taken to the extreme) is...
<p><abbr title="The English letter T">T</abbr><abbr title="The
English letter h">h</abbr><abbr title="The English letter i">i</
abbr><abbr title="The English letter s">s</abbr><abbr title="The
English exclamation mark">!</abbr><abbr title="The English question
mark">?</abbr></p>
[1]A long and thorough discussion of this can be found in "Gödel,
Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid," by Douglas R. Hofstadter.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
