Re: [XHTML 2] removal of navigation list element

What I would like to see instead of <nl> is something broader. I would
like to hee the introduction of an element like <h> in <ul>, <ol> and
<dl>. Right now it's label in <nl> and that's the only construct I
would like to keep. <nl> it seems was created with default
presentation in mind. While lists are the common form of navigation
and navigation list is a nice element to have, I would rather have an
<navigation> element than a navigation list, though @role will have to
do for now.

On 5/30/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> 
> --> www-html
> 
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > Laurens Holst wrote:
> >> As discussed and agreed with by many on www-html, I request the
> >> removal of the navigation list (<nl>) element, as defined in section
> >> 11.2 of the XHTML 2.0 working draft dated May 27th, 2005.
> >>
> >> Rationale can be found in the discussion on www-html, e.g.:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005May/0137
> >>
> >> Basically, I think that the <nl> element could be better expressed as
> >> <ul role="navigation">. The case the specification makes about
> >> removing the need for scripting is hardly a good one, as web site
> >> authors will usually desire much more control (style, behavior) than
> >> the <nl> element offers.
> >
> > Why just this element? A lot of elements can be removed now there is a
> > way to use RDF features to describe them. XHTML 2.0 could probably be
> > reduced to the xhtml2:html, xhtml2:div and xhtml2:span elements and
> > various attribute modules.
> >
> > However, I'm not sure if such abstraction is a good idea.
> 
> It probably isn't :).
> 
> There is a basic set of elements in the language to add semantics,
> however a line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you'll end up with a
> docbook-kind of specification and the introduction of <irony> elements.
> 
> As I understood from Pemberton's XTech 2005 lecture, the role attribute
> was invented for that reason; to be able to add semantics to the
> document which do not warrant their own element.
> 
> 
> > I believe there is also a subtle difference between |role="navigation"|
> > and the NL element. Where |role="navigation"| defines its relation to
> > other elements within the document the NL element denotes that its
> > content are to be used for navigation.
> >
> > A simple example:
> >
> >  <section role="navigation">
> >   <h>Browse around, freely</h>
> >   <p>Various sections of this site include:</p>
> >   <nl>
> >    ...
> 
> A better example would probably be the now valid:
> 
> <section role="navigation">
>    <h>Browse around, freely</h>
> 
>    <p>Various sections of this site include:
>      <nl>...</nl>
>    </p>
> </section>
> 
> 
> > The ROLE attribute on the SECTION element indicates its relation to
> > other sections within the document where the NL element describes the
> > function.
> 
> I don't think there is a difference.
> 
> Given your example, why have an <nl> element there? The list is in the
> navigation section of the document, why say again that it is for navigation?
> 
> The fact that the list items themselves are hyperlinks can be derived by
> their href="" attributes. Similarly, if a definition list were used for
> navigation, e.g.
> 
> <dl>
>    <dt href="tiger.php">Tiger Hash implementation for Z80</dt>
>    <dd>Just a quick and nice side-project to see how well MSX could
> handle the supposedly well-scalable 64-bit Tiger hash algorithm. DOS 2
> executable and sources included.</dd>
> </dt>
> 
> Following your reasoning, wouldn't that - in line with the <nl> element
> - also warrant a <ndl> (navigation definition list) element of some
> kind? What about a <p href="something"> inside the section with the
> navigation role? Is that not for navigation, too? What says that
> navigation should only be a list?
> 
> What if you had a
> 
> <section role="navigation">
>    <h>Browse around, freely</h>
> 
>    <nl>
>      <label>Various sections of this site include:</label>
>      <li>About me</li>
>    </nl>
> </section>
> 
> What is more 'navigation' about this list than any other list? Does a
> navigation list require all content to have hyperlinks on them (this one
> has none)? But the label (...) certainly isn't a link.
> 
> Note that this label contains the exact same content as the paragraph in
> your example did. Why is that text 'functionally' different when inside
> a inside the navigation list?
> 
> In other words, I think *everything* inside a <section
> role="navigation"> has the purpose of navigation (or a <nl
> role="navigation"> when there is no section around it), and not just the
> <nl> element. That is, hyperlinks in particular, but also the
> accompanying text which describes the navigation.
> 
> 
> > Also, how do you qualify 'many'?
> 
> That probably was a wrong choice of words :). However, I have seen
> no-one disagree with the notion. Until now ;p.
> 
> 
> ~Grauw
> 
>

Received on Monday, 30 May 2005 14:55:33 UTC