Re: Week 4/5: Staged WHATWG patches for HTML5.1 / HTML5.0 CR

Hi Silvia,

I do not think this section should be included, as it states that there is
not a dedicated element for marking up the main part of the content of a
page.This contradicts the definition of main in HTML 5.1 [1]

"The main<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element>
 element represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents>
 the main content section of the
body<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-body-element>
of
a document"

I think that it would be useful to some advice on how to mark up the main
content of sections and articles. I think that this would be better placed
in the main element section of the spec.

 So if its OK I will write a patch for it and the group can review the
whatwg patch and my patch before either are added to the spec.

[1]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element

regards
SteveF

On 3 February 2013 06:31, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <
> xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>
>> Silvia Pfeiffer, Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:05:00 +1100:
>>
>> > This week the following WHATWG patches up to and inc commit 7679 [1]
>> have
>> > been cherry-picked into the W3C HTML specification (master branch) for
>> > HTML5.1. This takes us to WHATWG patches up to 30th January 2012, i.e.
>> we
>> > are up-to-date.
>>
>> Under 'Common idioms without dedicated elements', the WHATWG spec
>> includes a section on "The main part of the content" which describes
>> various ways to mark up - or not mark up - the main part of the content.
>>
>>
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-idioms.html#the-main-part-of-the-content
>>
>> Is that section destined to be included?
>
>
> It's in the next patch 7680, which I will look at next week:
> https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/67934d61a46c1a2d8f1203ed0084f19f63a18af0
>
> Are you advocating its inclusion?
>
> Thanks,
> Silvia.
>