Mailing List Archive

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 03:41, Richard Grevers wrote:
> How come wikipedia doesn't support markup such as <abbr
> title="Sergeant">Sgt.</abbr>
> (It currently displays the raw HTML code)

That's HTML markup, Wikipedia is a wiki and uses wiki markup.

A limited subset of HTML markup is allowed, largely inherited from what
UseModWiki allowed, and mainly with the intent of providing visual
effects that we don't have a wiki way for (eg, tables).

What you're talking about is semantic markup, which is a trickier thing
by far.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On 17 Mar 2003 04:26:44 -0800, Brion Vibber
<brion@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 03:41, Richard Grevers wrote:
>> How come wikipedia doesn't support markup such as <abbr
>> title="Sergeant">Sgt.</abbr>
>> (It currently displays the raw HTML code)
>
> That's HTML markup, Wikipedia is a wiki and uses wiki markup.
>
> A limited subset of HTML markup is allowed, largely inherited from what
> UseModWiki allowed, and mainly with the intent of providing visual
> effects that we don't have a wiki way for (eg, tables).
>
> What you're talking about is semantic markup, which is a trickier thing
> by far.
>
Abbr has always been regarded as structural markup and thus has survived
through unto
XHTML 1.1 strict. Yet ironically, deprecated presentational stuff like <b>
is supported.
A Wiki equivalent of <abbr> is needed then (and <acronym>, presumably.
--
Richard Grevers

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 07:29:52AM +1200, Richard Grevers wrote:
> Abbr has always been regarded as structural markup and thus has survived
> through unto
> XHTML 1.1 strict. Yet ironically, deprecated presentational stuff like <b>
> is supported.
> A Wiki equivalent of <abbr> is needed then (and <acronym>, presumably.

Why do we need it ?
First, they're silly and were never widely used.
Second, what's wrong with [[jezyk angielski|ang.]] ?

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:52:24 +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski
<taw@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 07:29:52AM +1200, Richard Grevers wrote:
>> Abbr has always been regarded as structural markup and thus has survived
>> through unto
>> XHTML 1.1 strict. Yet ironically, deprecated presentational stuff like
>> <b> is supported.
>> A Wiki equivalent of <abbr> is needed then (and <acronym>, presumably.
>
> Why do we need it ?
> First, they're silly and were never widely used.
> Second, what's wrong with [[jezyk angielski|ang.]] ?
>
come to think of it that does pop a title, doesn't it. Are there situations
where you might need to expand an abbreviation without it being a wiki-
link?


--
Richard Grevers

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:02:27AM +1200, Richard Grevers wrote:
> Are there situations where you might need to expand an abbreviation
> without it being a wiki-link?

Very rarely I think. Usually abbreviation is either known to absolutely
everyone, like `kg' or `etc', or specific to some domain of knowledge, and
article about it should be written.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:02:27AM +1200, Richard Grevers wrote:
>
>
>>Are there situations where you might need to expand an abbreviation
>>without it being a wiki-link?
>>
>>
>
>Very rarely I think. Usually abbreviation is either known to absolutely
>everyone, like `kg' or `etc', or specific to some domain of knowledge, and
>article about it should be written.
>
"kg", "cm" etc should be linked, together with the number they follow,
to an [[orders of magnitude]] chain page.
[[%]] links correctly to an article :-)

>
>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:02:27AM +1200, Richard Grevers wrote:
> > Are there situations where you might need to expand an abbreviation
> > without it being a wiki-link?
>
> Very rarely I think. Usually abbreviation is either known to absolutely
> everyone, like `kg' or `etc', or specific to some domain of knowledge, and
> article about it should be written.

I don't agree that there should be an article on each such abbreviation;
however, if there is no article, one should just write out the abbrevation
in almost all cases. I tend to write out abbreviations like "etc.", "i.e."
and "a.o." whenever they occur in an article I am editing.

Andre Engels

Andre Engels wrote:

>I don't agree that there should be an article on each such abbreviation;
>however, if there is no article, one should just write out the abbrevation
>in almost all cases. I tend to write out abbreviations like "etc.", "i.e."
>and "a.o." whenever they occur in an article I am editing.
>
This is a sensible position. I would tend to make such changes in most
cases, but I would hope that eventually each of them does have an
article on Wiktionary. Of the given examples, I tend to leave "kg" and
"etc." alone, I have mixed feelings about "i.e." where most English
speakers would understand "id est" even less, and I don't know what
"a.o." means. I have to guess that it means "change it".

Eclecticology

> (Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>):
> Andre Engels wrote:
>
> >I don't agree that there should be an article on each such abbreviation;
> >however, if there is no article, one should just write out the abbrevation
> >in almost all cases. I tend to write out abbreviations like "etc.", "i.e."
> >and "a.o." whenever they occur in an article I am editing.
> >
> This is a sensible position. I would tend to make such changes in most
> cases, but I would hope that eventually each of them does have an
> article on Wiktionary. Of the given examples, I tend to leave "kg" and
> "etc." alone, I have mixed feelings about "i.e." where most English
> speakers would understand "id est" even less, and I don't know what
> "a.o." means. I have to guess that it means "change it".

I never use abbreviations when they can be avoided. I also write out
"that is" and "for example" and even "and so on"; we are not constrained
by the size limits of paper here. I suppose measurement units are hard
to avoid though, but even there I'd write "kilogram" if it was just an
isolated use in an otherwise non-technical article.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> This is a sensible position. I would tend to make such changes in most
> cases, but I would hope that eventually each of them does have an
> article on Wiktionary. Of the given examples, I tend to leave "kg" and
> "etc." alone, I have mixed feelings about "i.e." where most English
> speakers would understand "id est" even less,

Because of which I tend to turn it into "that is"

> and I don't know what
> "a.o." means. I have to guess that it means "change it".

"amongst others" or "and others"

Andre Engels

> > and I don't know what
> > "a.o." means. I have to guess that it means "change it".
>
> "amongst others" or "and others"

The traditional abbreviation for that is "et al.", another one
I always write out.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:27:35 -0600, Lee Daniel Crocker
<lee@piclab.com> wrote:

>> (Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>):
>> Andre Engels wrote:
>>
>> >I don't agree that there should be an article on each such
>> abbreviation;
>> >however, if there is no article, one should just write out the
>> abbrevation
>> >in almost all cases. I tend to write out abbreviations like "etc.",
>> "i.e."
>> >and "a.o." whenever they occur in an article I am editing.
>> >
>> This is a sensible position. I would tend to make such changes in most
>> cases, but I would hope that eventually each of them does have an
>> article on Wiktionary. Of the given examples, I tend to leave "kg" and
>> "etc." alone, I have mixed feelings about "i.e." where most English
>> speakers would understand "id est" even less, and I don't know what
>> "a.o." means. I have to guess that it means "change it".
>
> I never use abbreviations when they can be avoided. I also write out
> "that is" and "for example" and even "and so on"; we are not constrained
> by the size limits of paper here. I suppose measurement units are hard
> to avoid though, but even there I'd write "kilogram" if it was just an
> isolated use in an otherwise non-technical article.
>
Well, in the page that prompted this: [[Marine Corps Memorial Statue]] I
was wanting to expand the abbreviations Sgt. Cpl. and Pfc. The latter
occured in front of four names, and I don't think we'd want to see
"Private, First class" written in full four times. I don't think we'll have
an article on it any-time soon, either. Also, does anyone know what PhM.
expands to as a U.S. Naval rank?


--
Richard Grevers

> (Richard Grevers <dramatic@xtra.co.nz>):
>
> Well, in the page that prompted this: [[Marine Corps Memorial Statue]] I
> was wanting to expand the abbreviations Sgt. Cpl. and Pfc. The latter
> occured in front of four names, and I don't think we'd want to see
> "Private, First class" written in full four times. I don't think we'll have
> an article on it any-time soon, either. Also, does anyone know what PhM.
> expands to as a U.S. Naval rank?

If they're used a lot, then it's probably OK to abbreviate and link
the first one of each to an article about military ranks in general
(which hopefully someone will notice is empty and fill in).

"PhM" isn't so much a rank as a job title: Pharmacist's Mate. That's
someone who works in the sickbay of a ship.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

Richard Grevers wrote:

>Yet ironically, deprecated presentational stuff like <b> is supported.

<b> is not deprecated in HTML 4, nor in XHTML 1.0.
(I haven't checked XHTML 1.1, but that's not very relevant.)
<b> is quite different from <strong>, as I'm sure you know.


-- Toby