HTML: <abbr> or <acronym>?
Acronym: a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women’s Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
The definition, according to dictionary.com, states that acronyms are now groups of letters of words in a set phrase. This means that HTML can officially be considered an acronym, which opposes Craig Saila proposal that states otherwise. However, several points can still be made to argue against branding “HTML” as an acronym.
First, we must understand what HTML actually stands for: Hypertext Markup Language. At first glance, it may seem obvious that HTML is an acronym; however, “HT” represents “hypertext”, which contradicts the definition of an acronym according to the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition. This is due to the fact that “hypertext” is merely one word rather than two. However, because of dictionary.com’s slight ambiguity, this means that any letter(s) of any word in a phrase is applicable to an acronym: and therefore, this allows HTML to be considered an acronym. (And you think, “why didn’t they just settle with HTM?”)
In the case of assuming it is then an acronym, as Saila has found, acronyms can be classified by being able to pronouce the letters in a natural sequence (Radar, for example, is an acronym which can represent “Radio Detection And Ranging”). How many times have you caught yourself attempting to carry a conversation about web designing by saying “hit-mill”? Most likely or not, you have probably just said the four letters.
“HTML” can also be argued by how people spell it: “hyper text markup language” or “hyper-text markup language”. grammatically only the later is correct as a psuedo-spelling, but ethically, according to W3C, it is incorrect. Therefore, according to the HTML standards, it must be considered as “Hypertext Markup Language”, and therefore cannot be seperated in favour of an acronym according to the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition.
So in conclusion, what can “HTML” be classified as? That would depend on the definition you are looking at. If you are willing to accept dictionary.com’s entry on an acronym and take its ambiguity into the favour of HTML, then it would be considered an acronym. Otherwise, it can be suitable for an abbriviation because of the “HT” portion of HTML. If you absolutely want to be on the safe side, considering it an abbriviation can be ethically accepted.
The problem with using <abbr>, however, is the fact that IE6 cannot and will not accept it as valid code, although it exists. (It will work on Opera and Gecko-engined browsers [Mozilla]) Salia theorizes that it might have been used to eliminate the ethics behind determining what is an abbriviation, and what is an acronym. I personally believe it was something not in their highest of priority, and decided to disregard it as a minute piece of code.
Indeed, this is the blog of Franky Liu. Voukah is simply a compilation of random thoughts and useless rambling as he goes through an interestingly mundane life. With that, he is quite emotional and many times annoying; sometimes he wonders if he is narcissistic as well. He also may cause upset stomach. He also enjoys speaking in third person.
The abbr and acronym tags have confused many people. I generally go by the saying that if you can pronounce the new combo (like radar, NATO, etc), then it’s an acronym. HTML and CSS will always be “abbreviations” for me by that rule. :) Which funnily is the opposite of what you said…?
IE6 doesn’t like abbr, but IE7 does; although you’ll have to ask it to do the dotted underline. Speaking of which, Microsoft should release IE7 sooner.
Vickie September 27, 2006 at 9:04 amMmm, I must’ve been tired when I typed that part. Heh, I guess I mixed it up myself while I was writing about it.
Franky October 1, 2006 at 12:48 am