W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Navigation Lists Lack Adequate Structure and Other Thoughts on Navigation Lists

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 23:23:45 +0000
Message-ID: <428FC300.4010602@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxwell Terpstra <terpstra@myrealbox.com>, www-html@w3.org




Kelly Miller wrote:
> Actually, when it comes to nl, I think it would be more useful if it 
> were more like a definition list (with both a "term" and "description).  
> The description can be optional, but it'd help in situations where the 
> user's browser doesn't support CSS, and could even allow for CSS-based 
> display of the description when the person hovers over the link.
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> <nl>
>    <li href="http://www.test.com">Link</link>
>    <desc>This is just a test link</desc>
> ...
> </nl>
> 
> And so on.  This is probably best from an accessibility view, because 
> the current proposal doesn't have any good methods of showing extra info 
> about a link.

That seems useless to me. The *contents* of the li tag already contain 
the description for the link. If more text is needed, it can be put in a 
title or longdesc attribute (or whatever equivalent to that XHTML 2.0 uses).

And constructs like:

<nl>
    <li href="http://www.test.com"><dl><dt>Link</dt><dd>This is just a 
test link</dd></dl></link>
</nl>

...or:

<nl>
    <li href="http://www.test.com">Link <em>(This is just a test 
link)</em></link>
</nl>

...are also possible.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 22:55:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:04 UTC