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

Re: maincontent element

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:49:03 +0200
To: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120910204903708584.93cffee5@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cameron Jones, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:53:23 +0100:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Cameron Jones, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:17:38 +0100:

>> The validator does not protest if one nests one <article> within
>> another or if one has more than one <article> on the same page.

> 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.

Article inside <footer> and <header> is also possible.

> 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.

I don't have big problems with <maincontent> - but it is a bit long. 
Would you feel that <main> or <content> would invite to less 
"creativity" with regard to interpretation, than <maincontent> could 
lead to? They are also much more frequently used used as class/id names 
for such content than <maincontent>.

> 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>.

I guess, if the only content is the main content then <maincontent> 
doesn't add much.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 18:49:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 18:49:35 GMT