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: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:10:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkChVrpF6Xm2vHeYu3DxiY6iBkv8DdRDWHAV8gvdWDwew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>
Hi Silvia,
>Is your concern the mention of its children? I'm ok with leaving that out
- it does seem a bit strange.

yes given the pattern of other definitions it appears unnecessary.


regards

Steve

On 7 February 2013 23:07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 23:11:50 UTC

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