- From: Reinier Kaper <rp.kaper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:14:07 -0400
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAz96OuMbc5XNmRufp76=t+XuogTZ+jGUriZ9bQmy=xRvi4CVw@mail.gmail.com>
I think you confuse "order" and "hierarchy" in this case. "Hierarchical list" might be a more appropriate name, but is inconvenient just from a language perspective alone (imagine non-English authors like myself, struggling with a word like that). "Ordered" in this context means "there's a reason these items are in this specific order, because they are related to each other". The word "dog" does not have this relation at all, other than that there's a very long historical reason why these letters are in this "order" (it doesn't bare the same semantical meaning). An <ol> is also NOT a numbered list, it's an ordered one. The rendering is adjustable with CSS. Anyway, back on topic, the only really semantically sound way of writing a breadcrumb is (unfortunately) nested lists: <ol> <li>Products <ol> <li>Dishwashers <ol> <li>Bosch</li> </ol> </li> </ol> </li> </ol> Which would render in a way similar to: 1. Products 1.1 Dishwashers 1.1.1 Bosch Take note of the actual hierarchy here, which is the right translation of a breadcrumb. However, it's extremely ugly from a code point of view, not to mention very hard to read. I also doubt many people would follow this pattern as it's far from elegant. Besides I'm not sure if there would be any real benefit for screen-readers to mark it up this way. Maybe Steve can pitch in on this. Cheers, Reinier. On 17 September 2013 09:00, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote: > 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<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<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/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 13:14:46 UTC