Re: Context of the main element

Hi Silvia

>Can you adapt your patch?

I intend to do so in the morning

https://github.com/stevefaulkner/html/commit/b177639c9f45285f727c8dc42876097edd3e0d5c

Robin is going to guide me through committing the patch so I can get some
practice at working with the spec on git.

regards
Steve

On 8 February 2013 00:31, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you adapt your patch?
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>