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