- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:35:18 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 17/09/2013 14:14, Reinier Kaper wrote: > Anyway, back on topic, the only really semantically sound way of writing > a breadcrumb is (unfortunately) nested lists: If you want to denote the hierarchy, yes. If, however, you see breadcrumbs more as an ordered list of steps (a recipe, if you will, that you need to follow, from the site's entry page to get to the current page), then an ordered list also makes sense. As with most discussions of "semantics" though, it's easy to fall down a rabbit hole of over-specifying and over-semanticising things (or, as Jukka's example clearly shows, using "reductio ad absurdum"). Really, in the end, the question should be: how detailed and semantic do you want to be, and who would benefit from it? Would the experience be vastly improved for, say, screenreader users if they encountered a deeply nested ordered list that simply tells them where they are within a site? P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 13:35:41 UTC