Re: Skip links should be a markup problem

On  8 Apr, Joe Clark wrote:

> <http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2005/04/skip-links>

  Oh, no. Another one.

  Do we really, still, have to discuss this? The topic of visible "skip"
  links have been rehashed for ages, and laid dead. Note carefully:

   "I think that devices that interpreted a webpage should take note
    of its semantics." - quite correct. IF there are semantics to be noted.

   "If such a device encounters a list of links ..." - then that list
   MAY be a navigational menu or it may NOT be a navigational menu.
   There are no HTML elements with the interpreted semantics of "menu"
   today. It was tossed out, remember?

   "... or even more useful a MENU, NAVIGATION (both in HTML5) ..." -
   nothing support this non-existing "HTML 5", so lets forget about that
   suggestion. Using non-supported, non-standard, markup is a bad idea.

   "... or NL (XHTML2) ..." - nothing support the un-finished XHTML 2
   specification either, and it isn't likely enough will this side of
   2010 to be useful. Besides, it's "nl", not "NL"; and by following the
   logic already employed by the W3C it shouldn't be included in the
   final spec (anyone remember MENU? Hello?)

   "... element I expect accessibility devices to do something with
   that." - that's fine. When it comes to "skip" links, there is nothing
   to do anything *with*.


   There is nothing wrong with having in-document links. There never
   was. The discussion has gone from uninteresting to putrid. End of
   story. We don't need to rehash this every second month.

-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 19:34:45 UTC