Jeff Turner wrote, On 08/04/2003 17.21:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 04:03:36PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Jeff Turner wrote, On 08/04/2003 15.33:
>>
...
> Oh I see. So using top-level nodes as tabs incidentally enforces this
> no-nested-tabs principle.
Well, not so incidentally. Tabs are IMHV top-level menus, and this
simply makes it consistent.
> I don't mind, but the problem is then, how
> does one indicate that a top-level node *isn't* also a tab?
Shouldn't be possible.
> Look at
> Forrest's site.xml; do we really want tabs for 'about',
> 'getting-involved', 'documentation', samples', 'community' and
> 'references'?
We should make the tabs the top-level ones and nest the ones we have now
where appropriate.
>>Do you think there is a real need of nested tabs? IMHO they confuse
>>navigation. Tabs should be separate conceptual contexts.
>
> What if my site structure is:
>
> user/
> reference/
> dev/
> ...
>
> and I want a tab to the reference/ section?
user
user-references
dev
Tabs are top-most elements of the site. They encapsulate completely the
included navigation links.
So with the above layout I think that having a references tab is wrong,
I would just have dev and user tabs. Or change my navigational model.
> Or there's FOP's tabs:
>
>
>
>
>
Here is the point, 'dir'.
Tabs should collect branches of a site.xml, not physical directories.
Hence I would have the above without problems. I just need to nest the
site.xml parts that pertain to each in the correct one. I'm talking
about site.xml, not the dirs on the filesystem.
> I'm not convinced nested tabs are an evil menace we should be protecting
> users from.
The fact is that I still don't see the need, and that nested tabs do not
follow the clean hierarchical model of site /navigations/. We have a
site structure for navigation, and that's it.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------