- From: George Lund <george@lund.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:59:38 +0000
In message <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411260009360.17654 at dhalsim.dreamhost.com>, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> writes > >Someone sent me a mail suggesting: > >| <breadcrumbs> >| <a href="/">Main</a> >> <a href="/products/">Products</a> >> Dishwashers >| </breadcrumbs> > >I think a better way of doing this would be: > > <navigation> > <p> > <a href="/" rel="top up up up">Main</a> > > <a href="/products/" rel="up up">Products</a> > > <a href="/products/dishwashers" rel="up">Dishwashers</a> > > Second hand > </p> > </navigation> > >...where we define rel="up" to mean "go up one level" (as now) and add the >semantic that if the keyword is repeated, then it means up that many >levels. I've noted this as something the spec will have to talk about. URLs already have these semantics built-in. <a href="../"> means something special to web browsers without having to invent a new way of doing that. What would these keywords do extra that can't already be done if authors organise their URL-spaces sensibly? The idea of a <navigation> element would be very useful (like giving speaking browsers the chance to skip their contents, for example). But I don't see why that <p> mark-up should be added, as what we have there isn't a normal paragraph in most human languages. It's more like some kind of specially-ordered list, if anything. -- George Lund
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 13:59:38 UTC