Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 30, 2018. It is now read-only.

Definition of abbreviation #315

Closed
metzessible opened this issue Aug 8, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Definition of abbreviation #315

metzessible opened this issue Aug 8, 2017 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@metzessible
Copy link

The current definition for "abbreviation" in 6. Glossary is redundant and therefore confusing.

Currently reads as:

  1. initialisms are shortened forms of a name or phrase made from the initial letters of words or syllables contained in that name or phrase
    [Examples provided]
  2. acronyms are abbreviated forms made from the initial letters or parts of other words (in a name or phrase) which may be pronounced as a word
    [Examples provided]

It's redundant to say "initialisms are shortened forms" and "acronyms are abbreviated" because "abbreviated" is just another word for "shortened." It also doesn't explain what either of them mean.

Suggest the text be replaced with a proper definition clarifying the difference between the two:

  1. Initialisms are abbreviations consisting of the initial letters of words or syllables that are pronounced separately.
    SNCF, the French initialism of the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer, the French national railroad, is pronounced with each individual letter separately.
    ESP, the initialism for extrasensory perception is pronounced as "Eee Ess Pee".
  2. Acronyms are abbreviations made from the initial letters or parts of other words and pronounced as a word.
    NOAA, the acronym for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, is pronounced "Noh-Ah".
@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Sep 27, 2017

@metzessible, the definition you provided from the glossary is preceded by the following:

shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the abbreviation has not become part of the language

So I don't see a problem with saying an initialism is a "shortened form" any more than saying it is an abbreviation. Since we're in a glossary, both are going to be circular references one way or the other. I take your point that the wording could be tightened up. How about this? (ignoring formatting oddities from git editor)

abbreviation
shortened form of a word, phrase or name where the abbreviation has not become part of the language
This includes initialisms and acronyms, which are shortened forms consisting of the initial letters of words or syllables where:
1 initialisms are pronounced separately
SNCF, the French initialism of the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer, the French national railroad
ESP, the initialism for extrasensory perception
2 acronyms are pronounced as a word
NOAA, the acronym made from the initial letters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, is pronounced "Noh-Ah"
Some companies have adopted what used to be an initialism as their company name. In these cases, the new name of the company is the letters (for example, Ecma) and the word is no longer considered an abbreviation.

By the way, I wonder if ESP is a good example to use, since I believe it could arguably be part of the language now, just like tv. I'm inclinded to leave it out. Your thoughts?

@metzessible
Copy link
Author

@mbgower, I think my overall problem was using the word we're describing to describe the word itself. That said, I like your solution a lot better.

I'd leave ESP because a lot of internet dialog uses shortened words to describe something. "Extra Sensory Perception" is different than "especially." And the individuals it helps might confuse the two versions of 'esp' when they come across it in text.

@joshueoconnor
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the @metzessible feedback. Are you happy for us to close this? @mbgower

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 8, 2018

@joshueoconnor, you can't close it without actually addressing the definition, which is in 2.0. I suggest adding a label to indicate it is outstanding editorial work. I don't see any label specifically about outstanding 2.0 changes. Do you want to make one?

@awkawk
Copy link
Member

awkawk commented Jan 8, 2018

I have a pull request ready for this.

@awkawk
Copy link
Member

awkawk commented Jan 14, 2018

Thank you for your comment. The Working Group is not making changes to definitions that were introduced in WCAG 2.0 at this time, out of an abundance of caution regarding possibly changing the understanding of what the normative definition is for the terms. We will mark this issue as “defer” to ensure that it is re-reviewed at the next opportunity.

@awkawk awkawk closed this as completed Jan 14, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants