- From: John Foliot - bytown internet <foliot@bytowninternet.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:27:24 -0500
- To: "Scarlett Julian \(ED\)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>, "'Steve Vosloo'" <stevenvosloo@yahoo.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "'W3c-Wai-Ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
uh-huh, especially since the user will in fact choose one of the 5 links (presumably). Visual display vs logical structure. Links to "this", "that" or "the other" are, semantically, an unordered list; it doesn't matter which order you approach them, only that they are equal in importance. I have an associate who has been playing with nested lists as "dynamic menus", where hovering over a list item "reveals" the secondary nested list, place and styled via CSS. JF > > I'm not sure I see the distinction. What is it about footer links > that makes > them different? > > Forgive me if I've misunderstood but what John is saying is that > a bunch of > links can be thought of structurally (and thus marked up) as a > list. Whether > that list is layed out vertically or horizontally, or in a > left-hand menu or > in a footer is besides the point. > > --Julian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Vosloo [mailto:stevenvosloo@yahoo.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:41 PM > > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > > Cc: 'W3c-Wai-Ig' > > Subject: RE: Separate adjacent links with more than whitespace > > > > > > > > What I'm offering isn't a list, it's a series of footer links > > (e.g. not > > "Choose from this list of 5 links:") > > > > I see what you're suggesting, but I think if I had to go for strict > > adherence then wrapping the vertical links in square brackets > > might be a > > more suitable solution. > > > > > The information in this email is confidential. The contents may > not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If > you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply > facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield > City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or > completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a > public network. If you suspect that the message may have been > intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 13:27:32 UTC