Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: Comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD

From: ACJ <ego@acjs.net>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 17:57:13 +0200
Message-ID: <429894D9.1030009@acjs.net>
To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
CC: Maxwell Terpstra <terpstra@myrealbox.com>, Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>, www-html@w3.org
Perhaps "navigation" should 'only' be a role. Consider the following markup:

<dl role="navigation">
    <di class="home">
        <dt href="/home">Home</dt>
        <dd>The home page of this site, featuring a picture of a cat.</dd>
    </di>
    <di>
        <dt href="/cats/">Cats</dt>
        <dd>Index of cat pictures.</dd>
    </di>
</dl>

Just a thought...


Kelly Miller wrote:

>
> Maxwell Terpstra wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27-May-05, at 0:49, Johannes Koch wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think this is a very good example either. Consider this:
>>>> <nl>
>>>>    <li href="" title="This link takes you to the Home page of this 
>>>> site.">First Link</li>
>>>>    <li href="" title="This link takes you to the Sitemap.">Second 
>>>> Link</li>
>>>> </nl>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [...] But with using an attribute like title, the value becomes 
>>> atomic and cannot marked up any further, which might be necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the case where additional mark-up is necessary, a definition list 
>> can be nested inside of the list-item.  This is much preferrable to 
>> adding a description tag to the other list models.  It keeps the 
>> models simple, and allows for a greater variety of structures.
>>
> Then having <nl> is pointless, because that makes <nl> no different 
> from <ul>.  Besides, don't you see a problem with this:
>
> <nl>
>    <li href="#">
>        <dl>
>            <dt>Link 1</dt>
>            <dd>This is the first link.</dd>
>        </dl>
>    </li>
>    <li href="#">
>        <dl>
>            <dt>Link 2</dt>
>            <dd>This is the second link.</dd>
>        </dl>
>    </li>
> </nl>
>
> Both the term and definition become the link, then; and on top of 
> that, this is the kind of unnecessary setup that I thought XHTML 2.0 
> was trying to avoid.  Not to mention since links can't be nested, any 
> more information links put in <dd></dd> wouldn't even BE links.
>
> And the other solution (making the <dt></dt> the link) makes the <nl> 
> unnecessary markup.  Why use <nl> + <dl> when you could just use a 
> <dl> and get the same effect?
>

Received on Saturday, 28 May 2005 15:55:16 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.