Re: Non-sectioning <nav> elements

Gannon, I've missed you a lot since the <code@lang> proposal! And now
you're here again! How nice.
...thus said, I missed the point of the message. Sorry. I mean, not ALL the
message, just the fact about Aussies and the Turing and Easter and
Passover. Yeah I passed out on that, actually. BUT the fact that "I'm
right" means a lot to me.
Happy Easter and happy week to you too. And long live navigation and all
the navigators, sectioners or groupers of the world.
Andrea

2015-04-02 20:06 GMT+02:00 Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>:

> 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)
>