W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2013

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

From: Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:37:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAz96Ov0WiTLN6P+9WaTc0QcggUZxv6Nxvrs54c5Ttm2JVVzvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes@stommepoes.nl>, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, W3C Public HTML <public-html@w3.org>
On 17 September 2013 19:17, Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com> wrote:

> > It is GREATER THAN sign, and I agree that it is not adequate. But it has
> > become common enough to become tolerable practice. A better character is
> a
> > real arrow, “→”.
> +1. (It’s an AT matter now to deal with this though, in case
> pronunciation in a screen reader is faulty—I couldn’t test.)
> That’s the delimiter issue.

Delimiters shouldn't be an issue, as it's a display thing which can be
easily managed with CSS. Screen-readers should be able to figure out the
relation by looking at the mark-up only.

> What’s the exact problem with respect to the markup now? The thread
> has grown significantly. So far I agree with Mallory in that list
> markup would not be sufficient for breadcrumbs. That includes both
> single and nested lists.

Please explain what is not sufficient about this?
Nested lists are terribly cumbersome when it comes to mark-up, it's far
from elegant, but it's semantically sound.

> With lists having being the closest option, using <div> with an ID
> like “breadcrumb,” inferring some meaning, has always appeared to be a
> sensible choice. I think what you, Steve, used in 4.13.2 originally
> was more recommendable.

Div's with id's bare 0 semantical meaning, so that's really not an option.
Divs are block level styling hooks and should be used as such. With all due
respect, but it's probably the worst choice. ;-)

> The current <nav>/<ol> approach is problematic because, as has been
> described, breadcrumbs are not a list of options of equal value.

Depending on how you use them (really... the word we use for this,
"breadcrumb", is so miss-leading, as it seems some authors want to
communicate a tree-like path in a website, while others see it as a list of
In both cases, I think "list" is a key-word, either it being hierarchical,
or "flat", it's still a list of steps. Therefore a list should be
sufficient, <ol> would be the best as there is an order to the path.

Again, unless the author specifically doesn't want to communicate an order,
then a <ul> might be more sensible, or he/she should rethink if it's a good
idea to have no relation between the items ;-)

> --
> Jens O. Meiert
> http://meiert.com/en/
> ✂ http://onethousandthankyous.org/
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 23:37:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:35 UTC