..

[Berislav Lopac]

From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk>
Subject: Re: zen question
Date: 17. lipanj 2004 9:29

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Laurence Tureaud wrote, quoting:
[color=blue]
> a resource we can all refer to when making the case for <acronym
> title="Cascadin g Style Sheets">CSS</acronym>-based design.[/color]

"CSS" is not an acronym, though.

[Neal]

Re: ..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:44:22 +0200, Berislav Lopac
<berislav.lopac @dimedia.hr> wrote:
[color=blue]
> From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: zen question
> Date: 17. lipanj 2004 9:29
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Laurence Tureaud wrote, quoting:
>[color=green]
>> a resource we can all refer to when making the case for <acronym
>> title="Cascadin g Style Sheets">CSS</acronym>-based design.[/color]
>
> "CSS" is not an acronym, though.[/color]

That entirely depends on your definition of "acronym". Several dependable
dictionaries I've consulted define "acronym" without mention of it having
to be pronounceable. The W3 specs don't make it clear either.

Surely we can agree on a few things here, though: an acronym can also be
considered an abbr; IE won't do abbr; no UA's I'm aware of do anything
special with acronym that they don't do with abbr (other than IE observing
it and not the other). So I'm, frankly, inclined to look the other way if
acronym is misused (which I'm not convinced it is here anyway), being that
there no known loss in accessibility or usability.

[Brian]

Re: ..

Neal wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm, frankly, inclined to look the
> other way if acronym is misused (which I'm not convinced it is here
> anyway), being that there no known loss in accessibility or usability.[/color]

For my part, I'm confuses as to why the w3c felt the need to have both
<acronym> and <abbr>. Why not <abbr> with optional attribute
type="acronym"? I wonder too about things like <OL> and <UL>. Had it
been my choice, I think I'd have gone with <LIST>, again with optional
attribute type="ordered".

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: ..


"Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:opr9qvfkp4 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:44:22 +0200, Berislav Lopac
> <berislav.lopac @dimedia.hr> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: zen question
> > Date: 17. lipanj 2004 9:29
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Laurence Tureaud wrote, quoting:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> a resource we can all refer to when making the case for <acronym
> >> title="Cascadin g Style Sheets">CSS</acronym>-based design.[/color]
> >
> > "CSS" is not an acronym, though.[/color]
>
> That entirely depends on your definition of "acronym". Several dependable
> dictionaries I've consulted define "acronym" without mention of it having
> to be pronounceable.[/color]

Can you check again to make sure they don't say it has to be a *word*? All
the resources I trust specify that an acronym is a *word* created from the
initials of other words. I would argue that "CSS" is not a word.
[color=blue]
> The W3 specs don't make it clear either.[/color]

The specs do make it clear what *they* think: they include "GmbH" and
"F.B.I." as abbreviations that they consider to be acronyms. However, they
didn't invent the word "acronym", nor are they a group of experienced
lexicographers, so nothing they say about the meaning of the word is
dispositive. OTOH, as you observe below, they don't really make it clear why
acronyms and abbreviations need distinct tags anyway, and as the W3
indicates, there are abbreviations (like "SQL") that are spoken both ways,
so they could just as well have used ABBR for both, so practically speaking
it likely doesn't matter.
[color=blue]
>
> Surely we can agree on a few things here, though: an acronym can also be
> considered an abbr; IE won't do abbr; no UA's I'm aware of do anything
> special with acronym that they don't do with abbr (other than IE observing
> it and not the other). So I'm, frankly, inclined to look the other way if
> acronym is misused (which I'm not convinced it is here anyway), being that
> there no known loss in accessibility or usability.[/color]

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: ..


"Brian" <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote in message
news:10d3e6c2hi c8i09@corp.supe rnews.com...[color=blue]
> Neal wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I'm, frankly, inclined to look the
> > other way if acronym is misused (which I'm not convinced it is here
> > anyway), being that there no known loss in accessibility or usability.[/color]
>
> For my part, I'm confuses as to why the w3c felt the need to have both
> <acronym> and <abbr>. Why not <abbr> with optional attribute
> type="acronym"? I wonder too about things like <OL> and <UL>. Had it
> been my choice, I think I'd have gone with <LIST>, again with optional
> attribute type="ordered".[/color]

I agree with LIST instead of OL and UL, but I don't know about the type
attribute. Indicating that the markers should be bullets or roman numerals
or whatever takes care of that. While bulleted lists don't have their order
indicated by the markers, they are nevertheless ordered in the sense that it
would be unacceptable for a UA to render the items in different order from
the one in which they appear in the HTML.

[Chris Morris]

Re: ..

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> writes:[color=blue]
> I agree with LIST instead of OL and UL, but I don't know about the type
> attribute. Indicating that the markers should be bullets or roman numerals
> or whatever takes care of that. While bulleted lists don't have their order
> indicated by the markers, they are nevertheless ordered in the sense that it
> would be unacceptable for a UA to render the items in different order from
> the one in which they appear in the HTML.[/color]

Would it? If it's an unordered list, then the final display order
should be arbitrary. I don't know of any UAs that sort the output into
a different order (alphabetic?) but if it's a real UL, and not an OL
that has "list-style-type: disc" or similar, it shouldn't matter.

--
Chris

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: ..


"Chris Morris" <c.i.morris@dur ham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:87y8mmgoqm .fsf@dinopsis.d ur.ac.uk...[color=blue]
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> writes:[color=green]
> > I agree with LIST instead of OL and UL, but I don't know about the type
> > attribute. Indicating that the markers should be bullets or roman[/color][/color]
numerals[color=blue][color=green]
> > or whatever takes care of that. While bulleted lists don't have their[/color][/color]
order[color=blue][color=green]
> > indicated by the markers, they are nevertheless ordered in the sense[/color][/color]
that it[color=blue][color=green]
> > would be unacceptable for a UA to render the items in different order[/color][/color]
from[color=blue][color=green]
> > the one in which they appear in the HTML.[/color]
>
> Would it? If it's an unordered list, then the final display order
> should be arbitrary.[/color]

How often, in the real world, would someone type a list of items and then
have a desire to indicate explicitly that the UA should feel free to display
them in another, arbitrary, order?
[color=blue]
> I don't know of any UAs that sort the output into
> a different order (alphabetic?) but if it's a real UL, and not an OL
> that has "list-style-type: disc" or similar, it shouldn't matter.[/color]

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: ..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> For my part, I'm confuses as to why the w3c felt the need to have both
> <acronym> and <abbr>.[/color]

*They* were confused, too! The discussions showed clearly that
everyone participating was quite certain what the word "acronym" meant
and thus needed no definition in the spec, and that everyone who said
otherwise was wrong. Unfortunately, the meanings of which they
claimed to be so certain were all different...

OK, so why did they put <acronym> and <abbr> into the spec, and not
any other kind of distinction? Well, the sceptics would say it was
because Netscape had already implemented <abbr> and MS had already
implemented <acronym> - so they both had to go into the spec or else
the Big Two wouldn't have accepted the spec.

More constructively, some participants reckoned that <acronym> would
give a valuable clue to speaking browsers. But that fails miserably
when you get folks who reckon that "F.B.I." (*with* the dots,
ferchrissake) is an "acronym".

So the W3folk stuffed both the tags into the spec, woffled vaguely
about what they meant, gave some examples (including the misleading
one just mentioned), and left the users to work it out. And when it
came to implementing this part of HTML4, MS sat on their hands, it
seems.

[Brian]

Re: ..

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Brian wrote...
>[color=green]
>> I wonder too about things like <OL> and <UL>. Had it been my
>> choice, I think I'd have gone with <LIST>, again with optional
>> attribute type="ordered".[/color]
>
> I agree with LIST instead of OL and UL, but I don't know about the
> type attribute. Indicating that the markers should be bullets or
> roman numerals or whatever takes care of that. While bulleted lists
> don't have their order indicated by the markers, they are
> nevertheless ordered in the sense that it would be unacceptable for
> a UA to render the items in different order from the one in which
> they appear in the HTML.[/color]

Of course. It would be unacceptable for a ua to change the order of
any characters in the stream, too. Only presntations suggestions from
the author or user should change where an element would otherwise
appear in the document, no? But an UL, even where its LI elements are
specified by the author, does not mean the same thing as an OL.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Neal]

Re: ..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:20:01 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> How often, in the real world, would someone type a list of items and then
> have a desire to indicate explicitly that the UA should feel free to
> display
> them in another, arbitrary, order?[/color]

For me, the difference between OL and UL is that items in an OL are
intentionally sequential, whether in order of importance, relevance, time,
or other parameter(s). UL, on the other hand, could be put into other
orders if the author so desired, but this is not to say there's any reason
a UA should re-order a UL.

So I see a semantic reason for both UL and OL, in addition to a useful
purpose. (Let us remember that, while we strive to separate content from
presentation, some presentation must be considered for non-CSS rendering.)

Regarding <l marker="disc"> or <l marker="arabic" > - this would be
extendable to allow for all sorts of rendering possibilities. Though we'd
need to have a way to determine default performance if a UA does not
support what we requested, and it becomes something like <l
type="unordered " marker="circle" > or <l type="ordered" marker="romanlc "> -
or perhaps more compactly, <ul marker="circle" > and <ol marker="romanlc ">
- then we wonder why the marker style is even necessary, and we're back to
<ol> and <ul>... so I don't see that as an improvement over what we
currently have.

Contrast this to <acronym> and <abbr> which are not really organic to
HTML, and which are marginally useful at best. For this reason I rarely if
ever have used these, and doubt I ever will.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: ..


"Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:opr9rborfk 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:20:01 -0400, Harlan Messinger
> <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > How often, in the real world, would someone type a list of items and[/color][/color]
then[color=blue][color=green]
> > have a desire to indicate explicitly that the UA should feel free to
> > display
> > them in another, arbitrary, order?[/color]
>
> For me, the difference between OL and UL is that items in an OL are
> intentionally sequential, whether in order of importance, relevance, time,
> or other parameter(s). UL, on the other hand, could be put into other
> orders if the author so desired, but this is not to say there's any reason
> a UA should re-order a UL.[/color]

If there is no reason at all why a UA would do anything differently because
the order of my list happens to be arbitrary (and if, in fact, the UA really
ought NOT to do anything differently), then there's no more reason to make
that fact explicit in markup than there is to indicate with markup that the
information contained in the list makes me sad, or that it was dictated to
me over the phone instead of copied and pasted from a Word document.
[color=blue]
>
> So I see a semantic reason for both UL and OL,[/color]

I don't.
[color=blue]
> in addition to a useful
> purpose.[/color]

That either.

[Neal]

Re: ..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:36:01 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:opr9qvfkp4 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:44:22 +0200, Berislav Lopac
>> <berislav.lopac @dimedia.hr> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk>
>> > Subject: Re: zen question
>> > Date: 17. lipanj 2004 9:29
>> >
>> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Laurence Tureaud wrote, quoting:
>> >
>> >> a resource we can all refer to when making the case for <acronym
>> >> title="Cascadin g Style Sheets">CSS</acronym>-based design.
>> >
>> > "CSS" is not an acronym, though.[/color]
>>
>> That entirely depends on your definition of "acronym". Several
>> dependable
>> dictionaries I've consulted define "acronym" without mention of it
>> having
>> to be pronounceable.[/color]
>
> Can you check again to make sure they don't say it has to be a *word*?
> All
> the resources I trust specify that an acronym is a *word* created from
> the
> initials of other words. I would argue that "CSS" is not a word.[/color]

Direct quote from m-w.com:

: a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or
letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term;
also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM

So, an initialism is a kind of acronym. The word acronym includes
initialisms in its definition; therefore <acronym> markup is applicable to
initialisms, at least per this definition.

Remember, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive; proper
dictionaries reflect actual usage, and I must report I find m-w's
definition to be spot on with regards to how the term is actually used
(outside of linguistic circles where more precise terminology is, of
course, required).

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: ..


"Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:opr9rb5rjq 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:36:01 -0400, Harlan Messinger
> <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> > "Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> > news:opr9qvfkp4 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=darkred]
> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:44:22 +0200, Berislav Lopac
> >> <berislav.lopac @dimedia.hr> wrote:
> >>
> >> > From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk>
> >> > Subject: Re: zen question
> >> > Date: 17. lipanj 2004 9:29
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Laurence Tureaud wrote, quoting:
> >> >
> >> >> a resource we can all refer to when making the case for <acronym
> >> >> title="Cascadin g Style Sheets">CSS</acronym>-based design.
> >> >
> >> > "CSS" is not an acronym, though.
> >>
> >> That entirely depends on your definition of "acronym". Several
> >> dependable
> >> dictionaries I've consulted define "acronym" without mention of it
> >> having
> >> to be pronounceable.[/color]
> >
> > Can you check again to make sure they don't say it has to be a *word*?
> > All
> > the resources I trust specify that an acronym is a *word* created from
> > the
> > initials of other words. I would argue that "CSS" is not a word.[/color]
>
> Direct quote from m-w.com:
>
> : a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or
> letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term;
> also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM
>
> So, an initialism is a kind of acronym. The word acronym includes
> initialisms in its definition; therefore <acronym> markup is applicable to
> initialisms, at least per this definition.
>
> Remember, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive[/color]

Erm...usually the point made is that they are not prEscriptive...

[Neal]

Re: ..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:18:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:opr9rborfk 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=green]
>> For me, the difference between OL and UL is that items in an OL are
>> intentionally sequential, whether in order of importance, relevance,
>> time,
>> or other parameter(s). UL, on the other hand, could be put into other
>> orders if the author so desired, but this is not to say there's any
>> reason
>> a UA should re-order a UL.[/color]
>
> If there is no reason at all why a UA would do anything differently
> because
> the order of my list happens to be arbitrary (and if, in fact, the UA
> really
> ought NOT to do anything differently), then there's no more reason to
> make
> that fact explicit in markup than there is to indicate with markup that
> the
> information contained in the list makes me sad, or that it was dictated
> to
> me over the phone instead of copied and pasted from a Word document.[/color]

Well, would you advocate doing unordered lists like:

<l>
<li>Lawyers</li>
<li>Guns</li>
<li>Money</li>
</l>

and ordered lists like:

<l>
<li>1. Bite</li>
<li>2. Chew</li>
<li>3. Swallow</li>
</l>

?

We can even replace dl with this by nesting a list.

<l>
<li>Acronym
<l>
<li>A word web authors argue about</li>
</l>
</li>
<li>Usenet
<l>
<li>A place web authors argue</li>
</l>
</li>
</l>

I can actually respect such a view - that the three li's are purely
presentational and have no semantic value.

But at least in the case of ol, there's another consideration - again, the
fact that users in a no-CSS environment need usable rendering, and doing
numbered lists like in my imaginary scenario above results in a poorer
rendering than a traditional ol. I don't feel the divorce of content and
presentation need go so far that non-CSS visual users must be faced with
poorer rendering because no attention is placed to their environment's
usability.

[Neal]

Re: ..

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:24:19 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Neal" <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:opr9rb5rjq 6v6656@news.ind ividual.net...[color=green]
>> Remember, dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive[/color]
>
> Erm...usually the point made is that they are not prEscriptive...[/color]