- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:49:03 +0200
- To: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Cameron Jones, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:53:23 +0100: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Cameron Jones, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:17:38 +0100: >> The validator does not protest if one nests one <article> within >> another or if one has more than one <article> on the same page. > It should be valid, there is no problem with an article containing > other articles, like in the example of a blog post with comment > articles. Article inside <footer> and <header> is also possible. > I was more implying that it is difficult for an author to > misunderstand the scope of what an article could be. As long as it's > "self contained" in some aspect it would seem to be a valid use. I don't have big problems with <maincontent> - but it is a bit long. Would you feel that <main> or <content> would invite to less "creativity" with regard to interpretation, than <maincontent> could lead to? They are also much more frequently used used as class/id names for such content than <maincontent>. > Corollary to this, a document shouldn't have to contain an <article> > to give it definition, a <section> on it's own is a section within a > <body>. I guess, if the only content is the main content then <maincontent> doesn't add much. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 18:49:34 UTC