- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 23:23:45 +0000
- To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maxwell Terpstra <terpstra@myrealbox.com>, www-html@w3.org
Kelly Miller wrote:
> Actually, when it comes to nl, I think it would be more useful if it
> were more like a definition list (with both a "term" and "description).
> The description can be optional, but it'd help in situations where the
> user's browser doesn't support CSS, and could even allow for CSS-based
> display of the description when the person hovers over the link.
>
> Something like this:
>
> <nl>
> <li href="http://www.test.com">Link</link>
> <desc>This is just a test link</desc>
> ...
> </nl>
>
> And so on. This is probably best from an accessibility view, because
> the current proposal doesn't have any good methods of showing extra info
> about a link.
That seems useless to me. The *contents* of the li tag already contain
the description for the link. If more text is needed, it can be put in a
title or longdesc attribute (or whatever equivalent to that XHTML 2.0 uses).
And constructs like:
<nl>
<li href="http://www.test.com"><dl><dt>Link</dt><dd>This is just a
test link</dd></dl></link>
</nl>
...or:
<nl>
<li href="http://www.test.com">Link <em>(This is just a test
link)</em></link>
</nl>
...are also possible.
~Grauw
--
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 22:55:22 UTC