W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > November 2012

Re: main spec updated - changes to parsing and rendering

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:44:21 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=sJTx3QBojkC11=h89y+wa5bMSj2m7EEeg+1Hr5J1qeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 11/18/2012 05:20 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> I think we should be bold and actually ask to make <main> a required
>> element on Web pages - whether author provided or not. This means that
>> in the cases where the author does not provide a <main> element, the
>> browsers have to create one. They can use a good heuristic to position
>> it - such as "before the first <article> element on the page" or "before
>> the first <h1> element on the page" or "after any <menu>, <header> or
>> <aside> element" or all of the above and a bit more. Something we can
>> codify for HTML.
> If I understand your proposal correctly, what you are proposing would
> likely would break my weblog.  Search the following stylesheet for "body >"
> to see what I mean:
> http://intertwingly.net/css/**blogy.css<http://intertwingly.net/css/blogy.css>
Ah yes, the direct child selector ... I didn't consider that. It would
indeed break a lot of sites. Thanks for catching it.

Like Leonie, I was thinking that it would be nice if there was a means for
the browser to provide vision-impaired users always with a means to jump to
the main content, no matter whether the author has consciously marked this
up or the browser provided this automatically. I guess, instead we will
have to do the intelligent skipping in screen readers.

Thanks everyone for the useful discussion.

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 06:45:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:32 UTC