Paul Collins wrote:
http://www.method.com.au/newWebsite/
... The problem is that semantically this is not correct, the second
level here is relating to the home link and therefore should be a
sub-list contained in the <LI> of the home link. If you look at my
example link, this is how the code appears now.
I think you've got your semantics wrong by over-complicating those
relations, and thereby creating an (almost) unsolvable design problem.
You can of course let your semantic reasoning control the entire design
- change its appearance until it works, but I don't think you want that.
IMO: the second-level list doesn't/shouldn't relate to a particular
list-item in the first-level list. Instead it does/should relate to the
relevant _page_ itself. The links in the second-level list branches out
to connect other pages (or sections or whatever) to that particular _page_.
This means that it doesn't really matter, semantically, where on the
page the second-level list is, as it has no relations to any particular
element on the page. The relevant second-level list just has to be on
the relevant page.
The fact that you want the second-level list to appear under the
first-level list, is perfectly understandable and reasonable - and a
good design-choice, IMO.
You should then keep the second-level list separate, in the flow below
the first-level one, and not complicate things any further. Your design
is fine, and it can take whatever when you get the order right - again.
After all: semantics works best when it actually works in the real
world. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense, IMHO :-)
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
