Re: 4.13.1 Bread crumb navigation - use of right angle brackets

I should have mentioned that the rendered result (i.e. "1.1" and "1.1.1")
would be achieved with CSS counters, otherwise the result would be:

1. Products
  1. Dishwashers
    1. Bosch


On 17 September 2013 09:14, Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you confuse "order" and "hierarchy" in this case.
> "Hierarchical list" might be a more appropriate name, but is inconvenient
> just from a language perspective alone (imagine non-English authors like
> myself, struggling with a word like that).
>
> "Ordered" in this context means "there's a reason these items are in this
> specific order, because they are related to each other". The word "dog"
> does not have this relation at all, other than that there's a very long
> historical reason why these letters are in this "order" (it doesn't bare
> the same semantical meaning).
>
> An <ol> is also NOT a numbered list, it's an ordered one. The rendering is
> adjustable with CSS.
>
> Anyway, back on topic, the only really semantically sound way of writing a
> breadcrumb is (unfortunately) nested lists:
>
> <ol>
>   <li>Products
>     <ol>
>       <li>Dishwashers
>         <ol>
>           <li>Bosch</li>
>         </ol>
>       </li>
>     </ol>
>   </li>
> </ol>
>
> Which would render in a way similar to:
> 1. Products
>   1.1 Dishwashers
>     1.1.1 Bosch
>
> Take note of the actual hierarchy here, which is the right translation of
> a breadcrumb.
> However, it's extremely ugly from a code point of view, not to mention
> very hard to read. I also doubt many people would follow this pattern as
> it's far from elegant. Besides I'm not sure if there would be any real
> benefit for screen-readers to mark it up this way.
>
> Maybe Steve can pitch in on this.
>
> Cheers,
> Reinier.
>
>
> On 17 September 2013 09:00, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote:
>
>> 2013-09-17 15:45, Andrew Herrington wrote:
>>
>>> I think an ol is the correct element for a breadcrumb navigation as it
>>> denotes a meaningful order:
>>>
>>> "The |ol <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**drafts/html/master/grouping-**
>>> content.html#the-ol-element<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>>|
>>> element represents <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**
>>> drafts/html/master/dom.html#**represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#represents>>
>>> a list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
>>> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."[1]
>>>
>>
>> Such an argument has often been presented when advocating the use for
>> <ol> for something that is not a numbered list at all (which is the
>> traditional and prevailing real use and meaning of <ol>).
>>
>> If the idea that anything that is an ordered list of items should (or
>> even must) be marked up as <ol> is applied logically, you should also write
>> the word “dog” as <ol><li>d<li>o<li>g</ol>, for surely a word is a list
>> (sequence) of letters and surely changing the order of letters would change
>> the meaning.
>>
>> Similarly, a combination of words, like “used items” should then be
>> marked up as a list of words, shouldn’t it? And here we come rather close
>> to a breadcrumb. It has an order, the order in which items have been
>> written. It is as pointless and disturbing to use <ol> for it than it would
>> be to make a normal sentence an <ol>.
>>
>> --
>> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~**jkorpela/<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/>
>>
>>
>>
>