- From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:31:10 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Corvoysier <david.corvoysier@orange.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > There has been continued discussion [1] in other fora on the addition > of an element that identifies the main content of a web page, the idea > has been around for a long time. > I participated in the discussion and was against it due to lack of tangible value. I'll probably just be repeating some of the comments i made there, here. > This element would formalise common the common practice [2] of using > an id value such as "content" or "main" (typically on a div) to > identify a container element for the main content area of a document > or application. The id and/or class are added for stylistic targeting and not semantic markup, so the common practice is for a different purpose than semantic structure. > It would also provide an element that is a HTML version of the ARIA role=main. > This attribute applies the necessary annotation for accessibility, doesn't it make more sense for people to use this and have a clear meant-for-accessibility annotation? It promotes annotating for web accessibility, which i thought you would be all for? On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > new HTML5 elements such as article/footer/header/nav/section etc have > implicit mapping to ARIA roles which are being implemented in > browsers. This means that rather than having to add landmark roles to > elements, the semantics are (when implemented) conveyed through the > use of the element. This is a better approach for authors as it means > when they use the elements they get the semantics conveyed withou > having to add aria roles. The addition of a maincontent element would > complete the provision of native HTML semantic elements that convey > common and useful landmark structures. > The problem, however, is that if the semantics are not crystal clear they will be misused and you end up with a semantic-soup, which eliminates the concise structure which we are yet to bathe in. I haven't heard a good case of what semantic value is added over <article> and <section>. The arguments tend to fall on authorship aesthetics, which is meaningless and based on a naive document structure which is just as substitute for CSS class names. The "implicit" mapping from semantic elements to ARIA roles fits sometimes but also infers costs the other way round, now people are adding new, meaningless structure for supporting accessibility when attributes already serve greater flexibility. LIke calls to wait for HTML.next, i think if this is going to move forward is should only be based on solid feedback from the wild, from consumers as well as producers. I'm more confident that ARIA will be integrated more universally, and people will use <article> and <section> for semantic encapsulation and partitioning of content which can be syndicated or segmented. > > regards > SteveF > Thanks, Cameron Jones
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 12:31:38 UTC