Ever heard of the <acronym> tag in HTML?
Me neither.
27 view(s)
SOP for your TLAs
Ever heard of the <acronym> tag in HTML? Me neither….
https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net
That’s sorta cool.
Yeah. I haven’t figured out if there’s a way (probably is) to create a CSS style for it so that readers can see that it’s a defined term.
It would actually be a cool way to be able to write in jargon or geekspeak without worrying that I was confusing folks who don’t understand it.
As a matter of fact, yes, I DID know about the tag…
…I just couldn’t ever come up with a realistic way to use it. [grinning]
[RPG, ADRPG, PBeM…these terms are meaningless even with the description. Erm.]
I suppose you could make up some macros to insert a lengthier explanation automatically, so you didn’t have to type it in all the time.
RPG [“Role Playing Game, like Dungeons & Dragons.”]
ADRPG [“Amber Diceless Role Playing Game, a D&D style game inspired by Roger Zelazny’s Amber series of books.”]
PBeM [“Play By E-Mail, rather than playing a game Face-to-Face.”]
Sure, you couldn’t explain everything, but you could at least clue folks in a little, or let them know what the context is.
Yes, you can CSS it, using the acronym { }.
while I am still trying to figure out the jargon of LOL, IMHO, and all of those…
I considered putting those into my new Glossary, but I tend not to use them here. Well, wait a second. Maybe I do. Not as much as I do in e-mail, though. Okay, I’ll put them in. But just the most common ones.
Since my blogs are mostly “specialist,” in the sense of “no one really goes there who isn’t in the niche already,” I think it ends up being a relatively redundant tool. [I also haven’t heard it actually pick up on any of the print-to-voice readers.] On the other hand, I’ll probably try it out just because I like new tools.
Think XML is going to make all of this fairly outdated anyway?
Well this story certainly doesn’t sound promising for backwards compatability.
On the other hand, I’m less worried (in some ways) about what will work in five years from now than in what serves the function now.