RE: 4.13.1 Bread crumb navigation - use of right angle brackets

I also added this to the bug itself, copying it here. Still unsure of the correct process…


Is it worth noting that, while an ordered list denotes a priority (which I think is the best fit), a nested list would be more appropriate?

Here's my thought: The list doesn't show hierarchy, it's just a list. A nested list can show the structure as well:

<ol>
 <li>Home
  <ol>
   <li>About
    <ol>
     <li>Partners</li>
    </ol>
   </li>
  </ol>
 </li>
</ol>

It would render, without CSS, as:

1. Home
  1.1. About
    1.1.1. Partners

I know it's a bunch of "number 1s," but it denotes structure that a standard numbered list cannot do.

I suspect it will also be too complex for the average web dev to tackle without a pre-built tool to handle it for them (something in a CMS, for example).


> From: Andrew Herrington [mailto:a.d.herrington@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:46 AM
>  
> I think an ol is the correct element for a breadcrumb
> navigation as it denotes a meaningful order:
> 
> "The ol element represents a list of items, where the items
> have been intentionally ordered, such that changing the
> order would change the meaning of the document."[1]
> 
> [1]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-

> content.html#the-ol-element
> 
> 
> On 17 Sep 2013, at 13:29, "Jukka K. Korpela"
> <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 2013-09-17 12:13, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> 
> I have updated the advice on marking up breadcrumb
> navigation:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/common-

> idioms.html#rel-up
> 
> The use of <ol>  markup for anything that might be seen as an
> ordered list deviates from common practice for no good
> reason. It implies a default rendering that is practically
> never the desired one. So why take the trouble of using
> specific markup when its real effects are definitely not
> what you want.
> 
> Even if you think that <ol>  is a possibility here, would it
> really be something to be recommended in favor of other
> alternatives?
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2013 17:00, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
> 
>    Section 4.13.1 Bread crumb navigation (under Common
> idioms without
>    dedicated elements [1])
> 
>     encourages the use of the right angle bracket to
> indicate a
>    breadcrumb navigation trail:
> 
> It is GREATER THAN sign, and I agree that it is not
> adequate. But it has become common enough to become
> tolerable practice. A better character is a real arrow, "?".
> 
> 
> 
>    The use of >  in this context does not appear to be a good
> practice to
>    promote as the angle bracket is a symbol that depending
> on user agent
>    (AT in this case) is typically announced as "greater" or
> not announced
>    in this context. Either way it is not clearly convyed
> that its a
>    breadcrumb trail.
> Using <ol>  would not express the idea of breadcrumb trail
> either. It suggests a numbered list of items, typically used
> when there is a reason to use explicit numbering.
> 
> "Bread crumb trail" is a concept specific to web pages and
> similar digital presentations, so there is no traditional
> way to present it, visually or in speech. Digital media
> creates its own traditions, in time. Even the "> " notation
> is not as odd as it may sound. People get used to things
> that they see or hear often. Visually, too, the use of "> "
> is a matter of convention: it is a mathematical comparison
> operator gone wild, and as such "Main >  Products" is
> illogical visually, too: it does not say that Main is
> greater than Products.
> 
> If there is something to be fixed in 4.13.2 in HTML5 CR,
> it's the use of <p>  instead of <div> . It is pseudosemantic,
> since this is not about paragraphs in any normal sense -
> except as blocks of text. And <div>  is a pure block element,
> which has no default margins, so it is more adequate here.
> Alternatively, a <ul>  element with two <li>  elements, each
> containing one bread crumb, could be used.
> 
> -- 
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 13:24:23 UTC