Re: Context of the main element

Hi Leif,

please file a bug against the html spec with details of how you think the
wording could be improved


thanks
SteveF

On 2 February 2013 22:26, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> per the HTML5 definition, then <main> represents the main content
> section of the body. For contrast, in the WHATWG definition, <main>
> represents its children. And so,  if we have this:
>
> <main><h1>The article X!</h1></main>
>        <p>The article continues here.</p>
>
> Then, per HTML5, the <main> would also represent the <p> element.
> Whereas in the WHATWG spec, it would only represent the <h1> element.
>
> I think the WHATWG approach makes more sense as it implies very clearly
> that all the main-content should be wrapped inside the <main> element.
> The HTML5 specification in this aspect seems colored by the ARIA
> specification. ARIA only operates with attributes. Thus could e.g. be
> placed on an empty <img>, since it simply represents a place to jump.
> Since HTML5 introduces an element replacement for the attribute, one
> should take advantage of - and encourage - the advantages of an
> element, namely that it can not only mark the landmark  - where the
> main part begins, but can also show were it ends
>
> Emphasizing that <main> represents its children, could perhaps solve
> the issue of multiple <main> elements as well: If each <main> (except
> the topmost one) is required to be a child of another <main> element,
> then I guess that current ATs will not be confused by it.
>
> Leif H Silli
>
> Steve Faulkner, Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:29:59 +0000:
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> >
> > "Oh, none. I would imagine that any instances of the main element that
> > don't correspond to the main landmark (i.e. any instances that aren't
> > scoped to the document body) wouldn't have any special semantics for the
> > acc layer …they'd effectively be no different than divs."
> >
> > what you appear to be saying is that structural elements such as
> > header/footer if not scoped to the body should have a presentational role
> > only. I don't think its that simple.
> >
> > The vast majority elements and attributes have some sort of mapping to
> the
> > accessibility layer.
> >
> > ARIA is not used in the mapping of  the vast majority of roles,states and
> > properties , representations of them are exposed in the accessibility
> APIs
> > in cases where  no roles, states and properties native to the API's are
> > defined.
> >
> >
> >
> > regards
> > SteveF
> >
> > On 1 February 2013 11:20, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>> for example I don't see how your suggested changes will benefit users
> >> who consume the semantics, what will the semantics of nested main be
> when
> >> mapped to the acc layer?
> >>
> >> Oh, none. I would imagine that any instances of the main element that
> >> don't correspond to the main landmark (i.e. any instances that aren't
> >> scoped to the document body) wouldn't have any special semantics for the
> >> acc layer …they'd effectively be no different than divs.
> >>
> >> And that prompts the question "well, why not just use a div, then?"
> …which
> >> is a fair question. But seeing as HTML5 introduces a few other new
> elements
> >> that (I believe) don't have any effect on the outline or on the acc
> layer
> >> (e.g. header and footer within sectioning content), then the
> introduction
> >> of a new element like main seems like a good opportunity to give authors
> >> the option of using a dedicated element in place of a generic div.
> >>
> >> Cameron referred to this as "semantic sugar", which, while it was
> probably
> >> meant as a negative term, is actually a pretty good way of describe
> many of
> >> the new elements in HTML5.
> >>
> >> So my suggestion really just boils down to throwing a bone to authors.
> >>
> >> As for use cases: every single use of a header or footer within
> sectioning
> >> content (other than the body element) is also a potential use case
> >> for main.
> >>
> >> Jeremy
>