|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 02/14/06 13:13
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Jim Moe wrote:
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> >
> >> The primary reason for choosing <acronym> over <abbr> is that IE
> >> completely ignores <abbr>.
> >
> > It would be extremely rude to mark-up a non-acronym abbreviation as
> > <acronym> merely for the purpose of pandering to IE (<=6).
(and deleted where I had said:)
|| There *are* other solutions, after all.
> It is not wise to ignore the elephant in the living room.
Who said I intended to "ignore" it? I'd treat it with the respect
that it seems to deserve.
On the one hand, I would be perfectly entitled to conclude that if IE
doesn't want to take any particular action on <abbr> , then it's
entitled to do so, and why should I worry? I wouldn't classify that
as "ignoring" IE - but as having shown IE at least as much
consideration as it has earned, and then taking an appropriate
authoring decision...
On the other hand, if I wanted to give an impression of working in IE,
it's feasible to code e.g:
<span class="abbr" ...><abbr ...>Abbr.</abbr></span>
filling-in the ellipsis with whatever you wanted (title="...",
onmouseover, whatever appeals to you), and supplying appropriate CSS
properties for both selectors (abbr, span.abbr).
One could write an editor macro to generate that, or, if you like
generating your (X)HTML using an XML-based process, go right ahead.
At least that way you wouldn't be telling lies (sc. marking-up a
non-acronym as <acronym>) to the www-compatible browsers.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|