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

Re: Context of the main element

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:34:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnUoLN5UATc3+L_zq2u-f193z_KD4H_Y0LXoUS2MPWLiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@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>
Hi Silvia,

I would suggest that it be worded thus:

"The main<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element>
element
and its children
represent<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents>
 the main content section of the
body<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-body-element>
of
a document or application. "

regards
SteveF

On 3 February 2013 06:35, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 08:35:28 UTC

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