- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 23:39:33 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Nicholas Shanks wrote: > > Given XHTML 2.0's idea of an element for navigation list (using <nl> as > the tag [1]), it occurred to me that <menu>, deprecated in HTML 4 but > resurrected in HTML 5, would be entirely suitable for this purpose and > fully backwards compatible. From what I can gather, this was the > intended purpose of the element in the first place (not mimicking of OS > menus/toolbars). It was little-used probably though lack of awareness. > > I suggest that a new type, "navigation", be available for the menu > element. It's default rendering would be unchanged from HTML 4 > (essentially, the type would be a no-op) but used to explicitly declare > destination-oriented rather than an action-orientated menus. This would > be in addition to rather than instead of the <nav> element, who's > behaviour in HTML4 UAs is that of <div> rather than <ul>. (And be > backwards-compatible, something <nav> isn't!) You can already do that, basically, using <menu type=list> (which is also the default). > Allowing header elements within the menu content model would alleviate > this. Currently the "label" attribute is used for this purpose, which > has all the failings of an attribute discussed at length in other > threads, but most importantly does not get seen by users with screen > readers! Why not? > I also think that the "popup" type should be renamed "contextual". What > is known as a pop-up menu is created by using the <select> element. It's been renamed to "context". > Further, I am concerned about the backwards-compatibility of menus > inside menus. The current spec says that if the submenu contains no > label, it should render in line with the previous items. This > contradicts HTML ? 4 which says that menus inside menus should act the > same as ULs inside ULs. (i.e. indent; create a submenu). The current spec is talking about <menu type=context> with nested <menu>s, whereas HTML4 didn't have the "type" attribute here, so this doesn't seem to be a problem to me. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 16:39:33 UTC