- From: Terrence Wood <tdw@funkive.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:14:33 +1300
- To: "'WAI-IG'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: Terrence Wood <tdw@funkive.com>
On 12 Mar 2006, at 12:17 AM, Paul Novitski wrote: > Even if you could persuade me that link tags are a better way to > connect web pages than anchors I thought David was expressing frustration that designers must 'invent' their own navigation devices and the lack of separation between the content and how you navigate it. Primarily this is due to: (1) Browsers lack of support for <link rel="foo"> to build navigation independent of the content portion of the resource/page and (2) the early commercialisation of the web. Perhaps I have misinterpreted his sentiments or have simply expressed mine. Either way, we are a long way down the path we are on and I doubt we can go back and fix it (separate navigation from content) from here. > - Do you agree that unordered lists are allowed to contain hyperlinks? Yes, they are the recommended replacements for <dir> and <menu> elements from HTML 3.2 > - Do you agree that the link in one unordered list is allowed to point > to another unordered list? I can't see any reason why they can't. It is a matter of presenting some links that point to other links that have a greater degree of granularity. > - If lists are allowed to contain hyperlinks and if there are no > restrictions on the type of resources to which those links are > permitted to point, then why are we having this discussion? I'm not sure. =) kind regards Terrence Wood.
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2006 21:14:46 UTC