W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Context of the main element

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:35:46 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kqfs_NG8ZDo-JNcv++wN-Twtfjr6fhMzn8mKgAM+cLcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I think Leif implied adopting the WHATWG wording from
https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/67934d61a46c1a2d8f1203ed0084f19f63a18af0.

I'd be happy with that.

Is there any other wording that we would need to change to adopt it?

Thanks,
Silvia.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 06:36:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:37 UTC