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

Re: <header> / <footer> & ARIA

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:59:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4A97D495.2030306@lachy.id.au>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 15:00, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> I'm not so keen on using the name <main>, and would prefer we used 
>> <content>.
> 
> <main> is less ambiguous than <content>. Also, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1360.html
> 
>> <main> seems like it could only be used once per document, but if we 
>> introduce an element for this purpose, it should be able to be used 
>> within multiple sections of a page, just like header and footer can be.
> 
> Doesn't that defeat the point of the element? (Of course, error recovery 
> needs to be specced for the multi-<main> case. What does JAWS do with 
> multiple role=main?)

There are 2 issues here.  One is to have an element that can map to the 
ARIA main role, and the other to provide authors with an element they 
can use to wrap around the content of a section to separate it from the 
header and footer.  See, for instance, the markup used on html5doctor.com

For each article, they have a structure like this:

<article class="hentry">
   <header>
     <h1><a href="...">Article Heading</a></h1>
   </header>
   <section>
     <p>...</p>
   </section>
   <footer>
     ...
   </footer>
</article>

The use of <section> in that case is wrong, but it seems that authors 
want an element there.  Although if we just want to say use <div> (or no 
element) for that case, and just address the more specific role="main" 
case, then I can accept <main> as an appropriate solution.

>>> role=contentinfo == <footer>
>>> role=banner == <header>
>>
>> Do you think it would be acceptable to make these mappings subject to 
>> where those elements are used, like I suggested earlier?
> 
> No, I think the interface between the browser and AT should be exactly 
> the same for role=contentinfo and <footer>, etc. That is, it should be 
> possible to add <footer> support to browsers without needing changes to 
> AT. I think the AT shouldn't be able to tell if the original markup was 
> <div role=contentinfo> or <footer>.

That is still the case with what I suggested, since it's the browser 
that would handle the mapping from the appropriate <header>/<footer> 
elements to the banner/contentinfo roles.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 12:59:38 UTC

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