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

Re: maincontent element

From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:53:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGrgesyjg7jWEOktpM+jm_V8kB7uOpiH-92M=bseuUeTr30LQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Cameron Jones, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:17:38 +0100:
>> For structural demarcation, <article> represents a single piece, and
>> <section> represents a set of pieces as part of a whole. Where is the
>> room for another abstract structural container element which is
>> supposed to have meaning?
>
> If an article stretches over more 3 pages, would it then be correct to
> use <article> for - say - each 1/3 or that article? I guess <section>
> could work. But in theory, one could split something in the midst of a
> section too. Be that as it may: My understanding is that <maincontent>
> - just like <footer> and <header> - relates to the page layout rather
> than the structure of an abstract entity within - or outside - the page.
>

They could use the <nav> element with anchors and rels to indicate the
pagination, it would even syndicate ok, and if they don't provide a
complete source reference it could be constructed. I think google
already does this.

>> The problem with "main", "content" or "maincontent" i think can be
>> summarized by the rationalization people will justify in using it:
>>
>> "Ooh, this <p> is some main content, better wrap it in a
>> <maincontent> tag!".
>>
>> "Ooh, this <span> is also main content, better make sure i wrap it in
>> a <maincontent> tag too!!".
>>
>> Hence, the concern that this tag would be grossly overused to the
>> point of negating any intended usefulness arising from predictability.
>>
>> Compare this with the more distinct inference of the semantics of
>> <article> and <section>. They infer single and multiple frequency
>> which is difficult to be confused and are at the level which
>> structural elements are targeted for use and practical benefit.
>
> The validator does not protest if one nests one <article> within
> another or if one has more than one <article> on the same page.
> --
> leif halvard silli

It should be valid, there is no problem with an article containing
other articles, like in the example of a blog post with comment
articles.

I was more implying that it is difficult for an author to
misunderstand the scope of what an article could be. As long as it's
"self contained" in some aspect it would seem to be a valid use.

Corollary to this, a document shouldn't have to contain an <article>
to give it definition, a <section> on it's own is a section within a
<body>.

Thanks,
Cameron Jones
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 16:53:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 16:53:52 GMT