W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

Re: maincontent element

From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:48:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGrgeuGvsb8kLB1L3cyHyxGuWMxuHgrvqWZ4suWEjB=K-63uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Cameron,
> 'All of the suggested ones are too generic to be used without
> ambiguity, anything could be regarded as "content" or even "main".'
> the term 'main content' is specific not generic, coupled with the
> requirment that it is only used once per page and it only being
> allowed to be a child of body or a div thats a child would
> considerably reduce any of your stated misuses.

i don't think that the majority of people read specifications, or pay
attention to them even if they do. Far more people will use it more
liberally than ever intended because it "makes sense to them".

I would expect to start to see a "main content" wrapper inside almost
every element, essentially as a replacement for <div>. We don't need
another meaningless <div>.

> if 'main ' was too generic I would expect to see it misused often in
> the context of role=main. this is not the case [1]
> [1] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/04/html5-accessibility-chops-real-world-aria-landmark-use/
> regards
> SteveF

The great thing about ARIA is that it requires people to be explicit,
and with the intention of providing accessibility. It won't be misused
because that would defeat the point of specifying it in the first

Cameron Jones
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 19:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC