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

Re: maincontent element

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:34:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=sFeOUmQHYFDMOgdaHF0t1dbZr9vNQHCGhWPdvtpDJbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
hi Cameron,

'All of the suggested ones are too generic to be used without
ambiguity, anything could be regarded as "content" or even "main".'


the term 'main content' is specific not generic, coupled with the
requirment that it is only used once per page and it only being
allowed to be a child of body or a div thats a child would
considerably reduce any of your stated misuses.

if 'main ' was too generic I would expect to see it misused often in
the context of role=main. this is not the case [1]


[1] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/04/html5-accessibility-chops-real-world-aria-landmark-use/

regards

SteveF

On 10 September 2012 20:59, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> Cameron Jones, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:53:23 +0100:
>>> 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>.
>>
>
> I have problems with any new top-level structural element until the
> implementations of the current two have been seen in practice,
> especially by document consumers.
>
> All of the suggested ones are too generic to be used without
> ambiguity, anything could be regarded as "content" or even "main".
> HTML is a document-centric language so it lends itself to
> document-centric terms, but the structural needs are catered for with
> the ones that exist. After that, and the roles or class names provide
> the necessary specificity and in a far more extensible and flexible
> manner when all the needs of an application have been catered for.
>
>>> 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
>
> Yes, it just seems unnecessary and already implied.
>
> Thanks,
> Cameron Jones
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 19:36:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:34 UTC