Re: Non-sectioning <nav> elements

You are right, the target entities are groups.

In a broader sense it is the Turing Machine Paradox of Artificial Intelligence: Links to local  navigation instructions (driving directions) which confuse humans will also confuse AI equipped Turing Machines.

Map makers are none too pleased that the Semantic Web has interpreted their coordinate system as a class hierarchy catalogue - "Oh yes, Australians are just like Englishmen, except they are built upside down and have picnics in Winter".  No, no and no.  It is a pairity computation.

It is likely Gauss "invented" Relativity 100+ years before Einstein.  It was Gauss's recognition that Easter and the first day of Passover means that a single unique frame of reference (day) is at work in any given year, in both Hemispheres that made his algorithm possible (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text2a.htm).  At least the Australians got that one right.

Best wishes for a happy Easter, or Passover or April 5th (in the Down Under, Civil Law Countries, and anywhere else people believe in numbers but not necessarily labels). Andrea.

--Gannon 
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/1/15, Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Non-sectioning <nav> elements
 To: "public-html-comments@w3.org" <public-html-comments@w3.org>
 Cc: "Reinier Kaper" <rp.kaper@gmail.com>
 Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 8:47 PM
 
 Hi there!I'm
 going to ask some information about an issue which has
 already been exposed elsewhere by Reinier Kaper,
 unfortunately with limited discussion.The
 question concerns <nav> element. The spec describes it
 as a "section containing navigation links", and
 therefore <nav> is listed as sectioning content.
 However this means 2 things, one of which is also implicitly
 referred to in the prose (4.3.10.2 Sample
 outlines).On one hand, take a page structured as
 follows:
 [header
 with no heading elements][navigation][main with its own
 heading element]
 This means
 that the page has no title on its own and it revolves around
 its <main> element, whose title is the page's
 title too. Site navigation in placed a <nav> element
 outside of it, which is semantically relevant, as this
 navigation is not part of the main content. This forces the
 body to have no title and the benefit of non-sectioning
 <main> (i.e. the fact that it does not necessarily
 defines a subsection) is lost (although it can still
 represent a top-level section), so that the outline
 is
 [body]
 (untitled)  +  [nav][main]
 (titled)
 This can be
 extended to sectioning content elements whose heading is
 preceded by a <nav> element.
 On the
 other hand, having an only <nav> inside an
 <aside> element (which is also semantically relevant,
 although the spec suggests to use <aside> for grouping
 nav elements) forces a useless outline expansion[body]  +
  [aside] 
       + [nav]This makes little
 sense, as the inner "section" is the only content
 of its parent (apart from possible heading elements in order
 to avoid unpleasant "untitled aside" - and there
 have to be 2 of them, as there would be an equally
 unpleasant "untitled nav" otherwise).
 On a purely
 logical point of view, <nav> seems to define a tool
 for the page, a semantical grouping, like <main>,
 rather than a section. And like <main>, it should be
 the author's choice to have a "navigation
 section" or a "navigation side section" by
 putting <nav> inside <section> or <aside>
 as necessary. So are there any
 technical reasons why it is considered sectioning instead of
 grouping, as it would be intuitive?Thanks for all
 feedback.Andrea
 (this
 message is CCed to the original proposer)

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 18:06:32 UTC