W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2012

Re: [whatwg] A plea to Hixie to adopt <main>

From: Ben Schwarz <ben.schwarz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 01:59:00 +1100
Message-Id: <036FECC5-6C5D-41C1-A3E6-9C2C455C80AA@gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Steve, you never fail to amaze me. (Thank you!)
So, with it laid out as clearly as that, the glaringly obvious missing element is <main>. (Thank you Simon) 

Over to you, @Hixie. 


On 08/11/2012, at 1:53 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ben, 
>  
> I generally markup pages using ARIA roles:
> 
> <header role=banner>
> <article role=main> 
> <footer role=contentinfo>
> 
> and variations thereafter—
> 
> If there were to be a <main> attribute (with an implicit ARIA role to match), where would it end? <contentinfo> <banner> ?
> What is to be gained by adding an element, rather than using ARIA roles? Isn't that what ARIA is designed for? 
> 
> various new HTML elements are already being mapped to ARIA or platform accessibility APIs
> 
> <aside> is mapped to complementary ( IA2, AT-SPI and AX)
> <article> is mapped to article ( IA2, AT-SPI and AX)
> <nav> is mapped to navigation ( IA2, AT-SPI and AX)
> <header>/<footer> are mapped to banner and conteninfo ( IA2, AT-SPI and AX)
> 
> etc.
> 
> this means when fuly implemented authors will not have to add aria roles (built in vs bolt-on) the browsers do it already.
> 
> ARIA roles are used because the semantics are not fully implemented in browsers yet. 
> 
> If you take the time to read the spec [1] and supporting research you will find the rationale and use cases detailed. Its based on commont authoring practice.
> 
> 
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-extensions/raw-file/tip/maincontent/index.html
> 
> regards
> SteveF
> 
> On 08/11/2012, at 1:23 AM, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > My impression from TPAC is that implementors are on board with the idea of adding <main> to HTML, and we're left with Hixie objecting to it.
> > 
> > Hixie's argument is, I think, that the use case that <main> is intended to address is already possible by applying the Scooby-Doo algorithm, as James put it -- remove all elements that are not main content, <header>, <aside>, etc., and you're left with the main content.
> > 
> > I think the Scooby-Doo algorithm is a heuristic that is not reliable enough in practice, since authors are likely to put stuff outside the main content that do not get filtered out by the algorithm, and vice versa.
> > 
> > Implementations that want to support a "go to main content" or "highlight the main content", like Safari's Reader Mode, or whatever it's called, need to have various heuristics for detecting the main content, and is expected to work even for pages that don't use any of the new elements. However, I think using <main> as a way to opt out of the heuristic works better than using <aside> to opt out of the heuristic. For instance, it seems reasonable to use <aside> for a pull-quote as part of the main content, and you don't want that to be excluded, but the Scooby-Doo algorithm does that.
> > 
> > If there is anyone besides from Hixie who objects to adding <main>, it would be useful to hear it.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Simon Pieters
> > Opera Software
> 
> -- 
> with regards
> 
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
> 
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:59:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT