Tim <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The one advantage I could see could be search engines not using the
> page's navigational array in the summary it provides about a website.[/color]
I guess that's what the W3C's working group thinks too. Indeed indexing
robots could skip <nl> elements in some contexts. But it's really an attempt
at an ad hoc solution. What if an author thinks that a table (a real, genuine
structure of tabulated data) is more suitable for use as a navigational
collection of links?
Besides, if HTML is being rewritten and made incompatible with existing HTML
user agents on purpose, why stick to the idea of making navigation lists part
of the content. Use <link>, Luke. Advanced browsers already support it.
Of course it could be made more structural, but then the most important thing
is to define the link types well (the rel="..." values).
[color=blue]
> It's just as bad as the number of sites described as; this website
> requires Internet Explorer, etc.[/color]
You can avoid such nonsense either by not including a navigational collection
of links on every page or by making it the last element on the page,
optionally positioning it visually wherever you want.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <div class="lh">Laundry List</div>
>> <ul class="with-lh">
>> <caption>Laundry List</caption> <li>Soap</li> </ul>
>>
>> with a suitable style sheet. (Classing the <ul> helps in making its top
>> margin small or zero so that the list visually connects to its list
>> heading.)[/color]
>
> Which is essentially what they said, but with added classes. However,
> don't the DTD preclude everything but LI elements being directly inside
> UL and OL elements?[/color]
It does. Sorry for the I confusion I caused, when I failed to remove
the <caption> element from my suggestion. My point was that instead of the
currently hypothetical <caption>, you can make the list's caption an element
before the list. Perhaps as a heading, e.g.
<h2 class="lh">Laundry List</h2>
<ul class="with-lh">
<li>Soap</li>
...
</ul>
Classes are a clumsy way, but they work - as opposite to XHTML 2.0, which has
been planned for years, still exists as an incomplete draft, and would become
useable on the Web only after defined _and_ implemented in browsers _and_
after sufficiently many people have upgraded their browsers (to something
that currently doesn't exist even on a designer's desk).
--
Yucca,
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
