If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it?? What do screen-readers make of this particular glyph, if anything? Or should it be kept as No., which is quite common, and wrapped into an abbreviation element with a class of contraction, and a title of number?
Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with alt or title attributes. There are plenty of glyphs with multiple meanings and it would have been useful to be able to clarify usage. So I'd be comfortable wrapping the glyph in <abbr>. cheers, Ben -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
