- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:00:28 +0300
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2013-09-17 15:45, Andrew Herrington 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] Such an argument has often been presented when advocating the use for <ol> for something that is not a numbered list at all (which is the traditional and prevailing real use and meaning of <ol>). If the idea that anything that is an ordered list of items should (or even must) be marked up as <ol> is applied logically, you should also write the word “dog” as <ol><li>d<li>o<li>g</ol>, for surely a word is a list (sequence) of letters and surely changing the order of letters would change the meaning. Similarly, a combination of words, like “used items” should then be marked up as a list of words, shouldn’t it? And here we come rather close to a breadcrumb. It has an order, the order in which items have been written. It is as pointless and disturbing to use <ol> for it than it would be to make a normal sentence an <ol>. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 13:00:57 UTC