- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:57:31 +0100
- To: Andrew Herrington <a.d.herrington@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnPP+PVeR8DrCHWV7dJXwkFhmN4um_ztwHZBp9OssjTuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Andrew, note the proposed changes are in the editors draft for review, if you could add your comments to the bug for this it would be helpful https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22739 -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 17 September 2013 13:45, Andrew Herrington <a.d.herrington@gmail.com>wrote: > I think an ol is the correct element for a breadcrumb navigation as it > denotes a meaningful order: > > "The ol<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element> > element represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#represents> a > list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that > changing the order would change the meaning of the document."[1] > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element > > > On 17 Sep 2013, at 13:29, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> > wrote: > > 2013-09-17 12:13, Steve Faulkner wrote: > > I have updated the advice on marking up breadcrumb navigation: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/common-idioms.html#rel-up > > > The use of <ol> markup for anything that might be seen as an ordered list > deviates from common practice for no good reason. It implies a default > rendering that is practically never the desired one. So why take the > trouble of using specific markup when its real effects are definitely not > what you want. > > Even if you think that <ol> is a possibility here, would it really be > something to be recommended in favor of other alternatives? > > > On 26 January 2013 17:00, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com < > mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Section 4.13.1 Bread crumb navigation (under Common idioms without > dedicated elements [1]) > > encourages the use of the right angle bracket to indicate a > breadcrumb navigation trail: > > > 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, “→”. > > > The use of > in this context does not appear to be a good practice to > promote as the angle bracket is a symbol that depending on user agent > (AT in this case) is typically announced as "greater" or not announced > in this context. Either way it is not clearly convyed that its a > breadcrumb trail. > > Using <ol> would not express the idea of breadcrumb trail either. It > suggests a numbered list of items, typically used when there is a reason to > use explicit numbering. > > “Bread crumb trail” is a concept specific to web pages and similar digital > presentations, so there is no traditional way to present it, visually or in > speech. Digital media creates its own traditions, in time. Even the “>” > notation is not as odd as it may sound. People get used to things that they > see or hear often. Visually, too, the use of “>” is a matter of convention: > it is a mathematical comparison operator gone wild, and as such “Main > > Products” is illogical visually, too: it does not say that Main is greater > than Products. > > If there is something to be fixed in 4.13.2 in HTML5 CR, it’s the use of > <p> instead of <div>. It is pseudosemantic, since this is not about > paragraphs in any normal sense – except as blocks of text. And <div> is a > pure block element, which has no default margins, so it is more adequate > here. Alternatively, a <ul> element with two <li> elements, each containing > one bread crumb, could be used. > > -- > Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 12:58:45 UTC