- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:29:42 +0200
- To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Orion Adrian wrote: > 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. The label element is also allowed inside <ol> and <ul> lists, except that it is not required (much better, if you ask me). > <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. I’d say those two are pretty much the same. Except with @role you can also convey that the element is also e.g. a section. Nevertheless, if you seek to combine <dl>, <nl>, <ol> and <ul> into a greater whole (they’re all lists, after all), it could be interesting :). But I think it is important that the current semantics are preserved, like whether the order of a list does or does not matter, etc. Role isn’t really suitable to express that. But nevertheless, an interesting idea. Maybe dl could be dropped. ~Grauw
Received on Monday, 30 May 2005 15:30:00 UTC