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

Re: Context of the main element

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:07:11 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kbcLAFceosGtR345rSteXQafXgAv7mbcVmJ483sKntJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>
Is your concern the mention of its children? I'm ok with leaving that out -
it does seem a bit strange.
Silvia.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Silvia, Leif
>
> After a discussion with Mike Smith offline and reviewing the definition of
> other elements such as header or nav, the wording used for <main> in the
> WHATWG spec is at odds with the pattern used for other elements.
>
>
> For example
>
> "The nav<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-nav-element>
>  element represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents> a
> section of a page that links to other pages or to parts within the page: a
> section with navigation links."
>
> or
>
> The header<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-header-element>
>  element represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents> a
> group of introductory or navigational aids.
>
>
> So am converging on the regular definition pattern used throughout the
> HTML spec rather than trying to converge on the main definition in
> particular with the following update:
>
> "The main<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element>
>  element represent<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents>
> s the main content 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 09:20, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>> >Hmm... so you are suggesting it as a replacement for a <section> element?
>>
>>
>> the term "main content section" phrase is not new it has been in the
>> definition of the main element since it was initially defined.
>>
>> Are you suggesting it woul be better like this:
>>
>> "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 of the body<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-body-element> of
>> a document or application. "
>>
>> if so i agree.
>>
>> regards
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 February 2013 09:13, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Thursday, 7 February 2013 23:08:02 UTC

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