- From: Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:43:09 +0800
- To: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Tim Leverett <zzzzbov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Personally, I'd rather see <main> be more about marking up content in >> general, such as in this example which is invalid given the current state >> of the spec: >> <article id=1> >> <header /> >> <main /> >> <footer /> >> </article> >> <article id=2> >> <header /> >> <main /> >> <footer /> >> </article> >> >> ...although this would probably fit better as a <content> element, and >> would require a whole other line of discussion that can wait for another >> day. >> >> ☺ >> > > That's a good idea. We really need an element to wrap all the <p>s, <ul>s, > <ol>s, <figure>s, <table>s ... etc of a blog post. > I'm sorry, but I have to eat my above words. Previously I proposed that <main> being a sectioning element for a better document outline ( https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19591#c0). So the use of <main>s in all blog posts won't help improving the document outline. Regards, Ian Yang
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 11:43:37 UTC