On Dec 1, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > I think this will be a lot more effective at limiting the harm from potential improper use of <main> than a conformance error. A conformance error is a discouragement for some authors, but most content is non-conforming. Meanwhile, implementation behavior can avoid incorrectly identifying the main content even in the face of authors who do not prioritize document conformance. > > > Could that also include a rule as to what to do in case there is both a <main> and a role="main" on the page? While it's a conformance error, browsers still need to decide which one to expose to AT. So, maybe in this case it would be best to expose the element with role="main" only? Yes, I think it would be good to have rules to disambiguate cases like this. It probably makes the most sense for explicit role=main to win, but I could also imagine having whichever appears first win. > >> I agree with this suggestion. I would also like to see "Scooby Doo" documented properly. I do wonder, however, since (if?) it is only accessibility related, whether it should be in the HTML spec, or in the mapping spec of Stever, or in a WCAG spec. > > I think a "find the main content" algorithm has non-accessibility uses as well, for example for data mining tools, or for "readability" style tools or browser features. > > Right. So it should indeed be part of the extension spec, and thus ultimately of HTML, right? If the <main> extension ended up integrated in the HTML spec, then I think the HTML spec would clearly be the right place for a "find the main content" algorithm. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2012 19:11:27 UTC