W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2013

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

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:03:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vkf8j57i8V0Okm0tvc21Y2grKr7wXiOUPwcaceM3b=8+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 19:04:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:32 UTC