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

Re: Proposal: <content> element

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:24:07 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0908280124o10f6438cjcdd187bb004dc47d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Drinkwater <john@nextraweb.com>, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:56:41 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>
>> We already have a way to mark up the content that isn't the header,
>> footer, sidebars, or navigation: it's the markup that isn't the <header>,
>> <footer>, <aside>, or <nav>.
>
> Yeah, so people will be forced to write crap markup:
>
>  <div role=main>
>
> rather than just:
>
>  <main>
>
> Having said that, most people will probably use some variation of
>
>  <section id=main>
>  <article id=main>
>
> which would be wrong.
>
> Given that we cover 4/5 of the authoring practice regarding structuring
> content we should just complete it in my opinion and not leave people
> confused as to what to do.

While I think the idea of a <main> or <content> element might sound
worth-while, it would be nice if we could avoid calling the element
<content> in order to avoid confusion with the element of the same
name (but different namespace) in XBL2.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 08:25:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC