W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Proposal: <content> element

From: John Drinkwater <john@nextraweb.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:10:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4A891E6D.3090905@nextraweb.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Looking back at the Web Authoring Statistics
> 
>   http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html
> 
> I think the classes that indicated the need for an <article> in fact indicate the need for another element. Besides having a header and a footer most pages have some kind of element that indicates where the main content of the page is. I think that is what the classes "main" and "content" indicate. WAI-ARIA has a specific role for this purpose as well, "main". Presumably allowing AT to jump directly to the content of a page.
> 
> If you consider a typical blog or news site you have a header, sidebar, footer, and a content area. The content area is not a single article, but usually (on the frontpage) consists of the latest ten articles or so. It seems perfectly logical to have some kind of grouping element for these just like many pages already do.
> 
> I think that if you do the study again and also include the values of id attributes it will become even more clear, but simply studying templates of some blog engines probably does the trick too.
> 

I like this proposal. I take it that the element would be identical 
to <section>, but with the clear difference that it *is* a generic 
container? And with only one content element per document?


-- 
John ‘[Beta]’ Drinkwater        |      john@nextraweb.com
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 09:08:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT