Dan, I agree with you wholeheartedly! And especially in this forum, where
there are a TON of newbies!!!
Roxy Robinson
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/28/2007 at 5:59 PM Dan Lewis wrote:
On Saturday April 28 2007 8:42 am, John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Richard Detwiler wrote:
> >>> What do you mean by "a11y"?
> >>
> >> a-ccessibilit-y, like "119n" for i-nternationializatio-n
> >
> > Hmm that's very intuitive ... not ... :)
>
> I don't suppose it is very intuitive, but it /is/ established
> jargon.
But don't we have to be a little careful in using jargon? This
seems especially true when there is no obvious meaning to those who
do not know what it means. IIRC is another example that I see once in
a while. I still have no idea what it means. Besides, these
abbreviations were created because of much slower modems. It would be
nice to see the actual words once in a while. Assuming the reader
knows what our jargon is suppose to mean when there is evidence to
the contrary does not make a lot of sense, does it?
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
