[uf-discuss] hReview for Stocks

John Panzer jpanzer at aol.net
Wed Feb 1 19:12:58 PST 2006

Tantek Çelik wrote:

 >On 2/1/06 2:27 PM, "John Panzer" <jpanzer at aol.net> wrote:
 >>Would this be acceptable as a structured "fn"?
 >><a class="item fn" href="..."><abbr title="NYSE:TWX">Time Warner,
 >Well, you could use that markup, but there are several questionable things
 >going on here.
 >2. Both "NYSE" and "TWX" are abbreviations and thus proper use of <abbr>
 >requires that they be *inside* the abbr rather than an attribute. e.g.
 ><abbr title="New York Stock Exchange, Time Warner Inc. common

Hm.  I disagree with this, or at least I need a clarification.  I don't 
see a fundamental difference between using <abbr title="NYSE:TWX">Time 
Warner</abbr> and using  <abbr title="20050125">January 25th</abbr>?  [1]

Specificially, in this particular context, "Time Warner" is the simple, 
human readable, friendly, but possibly ambiguous abbreviation of the 
stock ticker symbol NYSE:TWX.  Just as "January 25th" is the simple, 
human readable, but ambiguous abbreviation of "20050125".

The key distinction here is that I'm not using NYSE or TWX as 
abbreviations for anything in this particular context; together they're 
forming a unique identifier whose constituents happen to map pretty well 
to certain English words. But they don't always; there was a time period 
when "AOL" was the NYSE ticker symbol for the company officially named 
"Time Warner".

 From  http://microformats.org/wiki/cite for example:

 > Finally, if the format of the data according to the original schema 
is too long and/or not human-friendly, use <abbr> instead of a generic 
structural element, and place the literal data into the 'title' 
attribute (where abbr expansions go), and the more brief and human 
readable equivalent into the element itself.

[1] http://tantek.com/log/2005/01.html#d26t0100

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list