- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:03:40 +0100
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "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, 28 Aug 2009 09:24:07 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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 <main> would work, and nicely parallels the ARIA use. Regardless of purity, authors *want* to have a <main> tag. HTML5 doctor gets lots of emails about how to mark up main content, and it's arguably the biggest misuse of <section> as people are using <section> to do it. (HTML5 doctor itself does it like this; we know, and plan to change it) Perhaps we've all be brainwashed by those evil Web Standards People, but it doesn't seem right that you mark up the peripheral stuff with their own elements, but the main content -the purpose of the page- merely gets a measley meaningless generic <div>. Of course, I'm entirely wrong. I'll get my coat. b -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 09:05:20 UTC