Over at Lunar Ocean, Antoine Toulme commented on my use of the
<acronym> tag. He was apparently not familiar with the
<acronym> tag in HTML 4 and XHTML 1.x. For those who are not familiar with it, the
<acronym> tag is what I used to create the tooltip effect here: HTML
Basically, it provides a roll-over tooltip effect, where pointing your mouse at the tagged text should cause a little off-colored box to appear with some alternate text in it. It is part of the standard for both HTML 4 and XHTML. Of course, I don’t think there’s any such thing as a browser that implements the entire HTML 4 or XHTML specification, so it’s almost inevitable that there are browsers that don’t support a tag like
Assaf commented at Lunar Ocean, correctly pointing out that at present the proposed HTML 5 standard deprecates
<acronym> in favor of
<abbr>, which makes perfect sense to me. There isn’t much need for both —
<abbr> can serve that purpose for acronyms as well as any other types of abbreviations, and if you really need to distinguish between them, you can do so with a style class in your CSS. In addition to all that,
<abbr> is less typing than
<acronym>. Assaf recommends using
<abbr> instead of
<acronym> because of the apparently incipient deprecation of the latter tag. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story.
Not too long ago, a few of the editors and weblog writers at TechRepublic (I’m one of those writers — check out the TechRepublic IT Security weblog) were involved in a brief discussion of the support for
<abbr> tags in IE. This came up because the subject of the
<acronym> tag came up briefly in comments to one of my ITSEC articles there. It became quickly evident that there are widespread inaccurate beliefs about these two tags.
For those who aren’t familiar with it,
<abbr> is basically exactly the same thing as
<acronym>. The difference is that
<acronym> is meant to be used for acronyms to provide alternate text that explains the acronym to the reader, and
<abbr> is meant to be used for the same purpose with all other types of abbreviated text (other than acronyms).
What most of the people in the behind-the-scenes TR discussion seemed to believe, incorrectly, is that the
<acronym> tags are both unsupported by Internet Explorer. Further, one or two of them suggested that we (the writers for TR’s weblogs) should never use either one of them, because of that lack of support. There are some problems with this reasoning, however:
<acronym>tags are parsed by some search engines, and taken into account when determining search keyword associations and search rankings. Thus, using these tags helps with search engine optimization.
- Using either of these tags in no way hurts anything. If the only difference between two versions of text is the presence or absence of these tags, go ahead and use them. Not only will it potentially help with search engine optimization, but it will also help in that — for those users who employ browsers that do support these tags — in at least some cases they lend additional usability for the website.
- Internet Explorer does support the
<acronym>tag. It just doesn’t support the
Point 3 there bears on the comments at the Lunar Ocean post. In choosing between the
<acronym> tags, you need to make a choice between:
<acronym>: a tag that is supported by more browsers now, but may become obsolete in the future, judging by a proposed specification that may one day become a standard
<abbr>: a tag that, right now, isn’t supported properly by the browser with the single biggest share of the market — and, thus, the browser used by the most potential visitors or customers at your website
I don’t advocate for using standards-noncompliant code just to cater to Microsoft Internet Explorer, of course. In fact, I use standards compliant code that breaks in IE somewhat frequently. I’m a bad boy, that way. What I do advocate is using standards compliant code that works as close to “everywhere” as you can reasonably get. In the case of
<acronym>, then, the choice seems obvious to me.
<acronym>, however, make sure the CSS code for your website includes some styling for the
<acronym> tag. In terms of general principle, this is because the dotted underline styling for the tag in Firefox is not part of the actual HTML and XHTML standards. It’s just the default styling employed by the browser. Since it’s not part of the standard, there’s no guarantee it will always be there — and, as such, you should make sure the styling is explicit in your code.
More specifically, you should explicitly style the
<acronym> tag because, while Internet Explorer supports the tag according to the standard specification, it doesn’t provide default styling for
<acronym> the way Firefox does. As such, in IE,
<acronym> tagged text will look exactly like the rest of the text, undifferentiated from the rest — which means IE users won’t even know there’s a tooltip there to be viewed — unless you use CSS to style the tag yourself.