Re: Week 14/15: Staged WHATWG patches for HTML5.1

Hi Silvia,

thanks for the clarification

please do extend the patch to include the article element, so as to align
with what is already defined in the element definition.




--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 18 April 2013 08:15, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oops, I meant to write "This *is* repeating information that is defined in
> the <main> element."
>
> So, what this patch does is the following: it adds to the elements <aside>,
> <footer>, <header>, and <nav> a note that these elements can't have a
> <main> element as their descendants. That's just repeating something that
> we already have defined in the <main> element, where we say:
>
> Contexts in which this element can be used<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#element-dfn-contexts>
> : Where flow content<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#flow-content-1>
>  is expected, but with no article<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#the-article-element>
> , aside<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#the-aside-element>
> , footer<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#the-footer-element>
> , header<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#the-header-element>
>  or nav<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#the-nav-element>
>  element ancestors.
>
>
> The only element for which we are not repeating this information is the
> <article> element. I guess that's because Ian believes there is a
> possibility to put <main> inside <article> elements. We could extend the
> patch to also be applied to <article> to say:
>
> Contexts in which this element can be used<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#element-dfn-contexts>
> : Where flow content<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#flow-content-1>
>  is expected, but with no main element descendants .
>
> This would make it clear in both directions (ancestors and descendants).
>



> That's all.
>
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> ? is this defined somewhere else other than the element defintion? if
>> thats the case then its fine
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> SteveF
>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>>
>>
>> On 18 April 2013 07:41, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Steve Faulkner <
>>> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi silvia,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Restrict <main> from having <aside>, <footer>, <header>, or <nav>
>>>> ancestors (7817)
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/92a5ab6d36b3db8b655f88d080779bfd0f8b56a3
>>>>
>>>> doesn't look like this was applied and ask that it not be applied as
>>>> the contexts in which main can be used are already defined in html 5.1 and
>>>> the rules are implemented the validator,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's in nightly, so just staged for publication. This is why I do these
>>> cherry-picks - I can always revert them. However, I have a question.
>>> This repeating information that is defined in the <main> element. Why is
>>> that so bad to repeat it? In my view, it makes it easier for an author to
>>> find this information.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Silvia.
>>>
>>
>>
>