[uf-discuss] Size considerations (or how to choose abbreviations)

[Mike Schinkel]

>> The point I am trying to make is abbreviations can be very dangerous and
are very easy to mis-interpret so I think we need to think long and hard
before choosing and implementing them.  I am not arguing against them in
specific cases but very well thought out cases.  

I have a question about that.  I'll use the example of money because it's
one I'm more familiar with.  In this particular case, we have money,
currency, and amount:

	<span class="money">
	   <abbr class="currency" title="USD">$</abbr>
	   <span class="amount">5.99</span>
	</span>
 
However, and this is an honest question, isn't "currency" and "amount"
really only valid in context with "money?"  Wouldn't that make it okay to
abbreviate the children of money, like so?:

	<span class="money">
	   <abbr class="cur" title="USD">$</abbr>
	   <span class="amt">5.99</span>
	</span>
 

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
[mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Rines
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:45 PM
To: microformats-discuss at microformats.org
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Size considerations (or how to choose
abbreviations)


In message <45373222.9010703 at charlesroper.co.uk> Charles Roper
<reachme at charlesroper.co.uk> in addition to other things said:
> Should "bin", var", "cult", etc., be written in full? (I think not, to 
> save bloating file sizes)

> These abbreviations are absolutely fine within the very narrow domain 
> of biological nomenclature and taxonomy, but expanded out into the 
> wider domain, then they become horribly generic and lose their 
> meaning. Same with using "sci".

In message <5j$UhbDvx8NFFwi7 at pigsonthewing.org.uk> Andy Mabbett
<andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> in addition to other things said: 

> And yet we have "geo".

I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think geo
can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.  

As with much other microformat work a well known standard or abbreviation
like vcard I think geo can is a (or close to) "standard" so it is a "safe"
abbreviation which I think is what we should be aiming for when creating an
abbreviation of any type.  I do realize GEO is being used by others such as
the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) but I THINK what I say holds as geo being
an implied abbreviation standard.

The point I am trying to make is abbreviations can be very dangerous and are
very easy to mis-interpret so I think we need to think long and hard before
choosing and implementing them.  I am not arguing against them in specific
cases but very well thought out cases.  

As microformats are human-readable first I think size is a secondary
consideration.  Are there any stats about how many sites are compression
enabled vs. not?

Thank You,

Christopher



___________________________________________________________
$0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized
POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss at microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss