Michael Brockington wrote: > I'm not 100% sure this is the case, but > what a screen reader _should_ do is to > _read_ an <acronym> and to _spell out_ > an abreviation. Even if that is not yet > the case, it seems likely in the future, > assuming that we all use the correct > elements in the first place...
That is my thinking on the matter too. If it is meant to be spoken (RADAR), it is the acronym-type of abbreviation. It is known that an acronym is a special type of abbreviation and in my mind this is determined by how it is handled by the reader. This is my rule-of-thumb when I'm deciding which is more proper to use in a given instance. I like having this as my rule-of-thumb because it takes the individual instance brainwork out of it. In other words I can have a consistent practice to rely on. As abbreviations go, provided this thinking is correct, the acronym is somewhat uncommon. We wouldn't see it very often I suspect if IE supported <abbr>. If IE offered the proper support, I suspect there would be a far greater number of proper instances on the web since I feel most people use <acronym> for the styling and IE support. Of course I cannot effectively support this by looking it up on the web because the lines on this have been blurred significantly over time so the dictionaries are of little help. I *think* I originally read this rule in the book, "The Elements of Style" (which is sort of a universally-accepted writer's rule book). Respectfully, Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
