This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The recommendation "Authors are encouraged to markup bread-crumb navigation as an ordered list using the ol and li elements" should be removed, and the example should be changed back to what it is in HTML5 CR (possibly with “>” replaced by the more logical “→”). There is no reason to make the links in a bread-crumb items in a numbered list (which is what <ol> really is, no matter what the specs might say). Markup that causes unacceptable default rendering should not be recommended, especially when there are simple alternatives that are in common use. In the example, the attribute aria-label should either be removed or its value replaced by an adequate text than "You are here". That text would describe the part that contains the name of the current page, but not for the entire bread crumb.
Seriously? We're still discussing this on the mailing list and you file a bug with your opinion? Is this the normal way of doing things around here?
(In reply to Reinier Kaper from comment #1) > Seriously? We're still discussing this on the mailing list and you file a > bug with your opinion? > > Is this the normal way of doing things around here? Hi Reinier, I am happy for people to discuss on list, but it is helpful for capturing comments to do so on bug. When I make a change to the spec or start a discussion about change I usually open a bug which i did so for this topic (2013-07-20). I asked both Jukka[2] and andrew[1] to post specific comments on the the bug that was open for this issue[3] as can anyone else. For some reason Jukka chose to open a new bug which I have linked to the existing bug. [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Sep/0202.html [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Sep/0201.html [3]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22739
Okay, so this should then go under the original bug? Is there a reason we discuss this in two places? I feel it would be more efficient to keep it all in the tracker, as right now the whole discussion is "lost" in the list with no reference in the tracker. I apologize for my blunt reply, but I was surprised to see a new bug opened for this (I didn't know there was an original one already) and it felt like "making a point" to me.
the spec no longer mentions what type of list markup to use