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

Re: Comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD

From: ACJ <ego@acjs.net>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 17:57:13 +0200
Message-ID: <429894D9.1030009@acjs.net>
To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
CC: Maxwell Terpstra <terpstra@myrealbox.com>, Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>, www-html@w3.org
Perhaps "navigation" should 'only' be a role. Consider the following markup:

<dl role="navigation">
    <di class="home">
        <dt href="/home">Home</dt>
        <dd>The home page of this site, featuring a picture of a cat.</dd>
    </di>
    <di>
        <dt href="/cats/">Cats</dt>
        <dd>Index of cat pictures.</dd>
    </di>
</dl>

Just a thought...


Kelly Miller wrote:

>
> Maxwell Terpstra wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27-May-05, at 0:49, Johannes Koch wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think this is a very good example either. Consider this:
>>>> <nl>
>>>>    <li href="" title="This link takes you to the Home page of this 
>>>> site.">First Link</li>
>>>>    <li href="" title="This link takes you to the Sitemap.">Second 
>>>> Link</li>
>>>> </nl>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [...] But with using an attribute like title, the value becomes 
>>> atomic and cannot marked up any further, which might be necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the case where additional mark-up is necessary, a definition list 
>> can be nested inside of the list-item.  This is much preferrable to 
>> adding a description tag to the other list models.  It keeps the 
>> models simple, and allows for a greater variety of structures.
>>
> Then having <nl> is pointless, because that makes <nl> no different 
> from <ul>.  Besides, don't you see a problem with this:
>
> <nl>
>    <li href="#">
>        <dl>
>            <dt>Link 1</dt>
>            <dd>This is the first link.</dd>
>        </dl>
>    </li>
>    <li href="#">
>        <dl>
>            <dt>Link 2</dt>
>            <dd>This is the second link.</dd>
>        </dl>
>    </li>
> </nl>
>
> Both the term and definition become the link, then; and on top of 
> that, this is the kind of unnecessary setup that I thought XHTML 2.0 
> was trying to avoid.  Not to mention since links can't be nested, any 
> more information links put in <dd></dd> wouldn't even BE links.
>
> And the other solution (making the <dt></dt> the link) makes the <nl> 
> unnecessary markup.  Why use <nl> + <dl> when you could just use a 
> <dl> and get the same effect?
>

Received on Saturday, 28 May 2005 15:55:16 UTC

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