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 20:13:10 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nPXzQ6tgE_By+Auj1jGet3NNqXfUbTFEBihTjUThVf4g@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>
Hmm... so you are suggesting it as a replacement for a <section> element?
Silvia.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 09:14:01 UTC

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