Patrick: > However, for people who do like to split hairs, I'd take this one step > further and say: does "WORD" imply pronouncability? Discuss...
er.. pronouncability? Apparently under US law it is completely acceptable for a name to be spelt "Brown" yet pronounced "Smith". Generally speaking acronyms and initialised abbreviations are slowly becoming synonymous. English is a living language and as such words may change meaning with time. For example "gay". But enough of the pedantry. ;) mike 2k:)2 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Mike Foskett Web Standards, Accessibility & Testing Consultant Multimedia Publishing and Production British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) Milburn Hill Road, Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 02476 416994 Ext 3342 [Tuesday - Thursday] Fax: 02476 411410 www.becta.org.uk ____________________________________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 March 2005 11:45 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] <acronym> and <abbr> and worms > russ - maxdesign > Acronyms > -------------------------- > Acronyms are a subset of abbreviations, as they are still > shortened words. > However, they are more specific. An acronym is defined as a > WORD formed from > the initial letters of a multi-word name. The important point > here is that > an acronym must be a WORD - this means that the joined > initial letters must > be able to be pronounced. And this is where the worms usually are...the requirement for pronouncability of the formed word. Certain developers (me included, I'm afraid) don't see this as a main sticking point, and would put initialisms into acronym, rather than abbreviation. We *could* start debating this again, but because: - acronyms are abbreviations, and therefore initialisms marked up as acronyms are therefore still abbreviations - the distinction of acronm and abbreviation is removed in XHTML2.0 (yes, I know...in 2021 when we'll finally be using it) - no current "semantic" tool makes any hard distinction between them I'd say it becomes an exercise in splitting hairs. The main key is consistency: whether you think initialisms are acronyms or abbreviations, choose a camp and stick with it. If, for instance, you consistently mark up HTML as <acronym title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</acronym> on all your pages, and later find out that you were wrong (once the gods of semantics appear to you in a dream, or something), you can still do a site-wide replace for it (or, heck, use XSLT to transform all your XHTML, whatever). However, for people who do like to split hairs, I'd take this one step further and say: does "WORD" imply pronouncability? Discuss... Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ****************************************************** ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
