On 6/12/04 11:09 AM, "Mordechai Peller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Futter wrote: > >> I don't buy the argument that breadcrumbs *have to be* structured as lists. >> Why? Because they're not a collection of loosely-related list items, like a >> shopping list or such; rather, a unit of breadcrumbs collectively delineates >> a *path* to a resource (without resorting to conventional OS-style paths). >> >> > No, they're not loosely related collection of items, they're strongly > related, so all the more so they should be a list. > >> To take the 'breadcrumbs must be lists' argument to its logical extreme would >> see us marking up sentences as ordered lists, with individual words as list >> items, simply because each component has a relationship to its neighbours. I >> don't see any inherent semantic superiority in the list approach in this >> case. >> > A sentence isn't a collection of related item because each word is > dependent on the rest of the sentence to give it meaning. In a list, > while the list itself may impart context, each item otherwise stands on > it's own. Adding or removing items from a list doesn't change the > meaning of the list, nor its members. Adding or removing words from a > sentence changes the meaning of the sentence to such an extent that it > may make the sentence meaningless. As with words of a sentence, to a > slightly lesser extent, so could be said about sentences of a paragraph. Yes, breadcrumb elements are strongly related in exactly the same way that sentence elements (i.e. words) are; and sentences can be rendered with precise meaning even if some words are omitted (prepositions, conjunctions, most adverbs, many adjectives). You're chasing your tail here. > Also, while the order of an ordered list imparts meaning to the list, > little or no meaning is imparted to its item. Change the order of the > words of a sentence, not only can the sentence take on new meaning, so > can its words. This is true, and in my opinion only makes it more useful in a breadcrumbs context, as you can't arbitrarily move breadcrumb elements around or omit them without destroying the meaning of the whole, either. > >> Perhaps the W3C needs to introduce a <breadcrumbs> element? >> >> > In XHTML 2 there's a navigation list (<nl>). I did not know that - it sounds useful. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
