Re: Context of the main element

Hi Silvia, Leif

After a discussion with Mike Smith offline and reviewing the definition of
other elements such as header or nav, the wording used for <main> in the
WHATWG spec is at odds with the pattern used for other elements.


For example

"The nav<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-nav-element>
 element represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents>
a
section of a page that links to other pages or to parts within the page: a
section with navigation links."

or

The header<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-header-element>
 element represents<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents>
a
group of introductory or navigational aids.


So am converging on the regular definition pattern used throughout the HTML
spec rather than trying to converge on the main definition in particular
with the following update:

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



regards
SteveF


On 3 February 2013 09:20, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Silvia,
>
> >Hmm... so you are suggesting it as a replacement for a <section> element?
>
>
> the term "main content section" phrase is not new it has been in the
> definition of the main element since it was initially defined.
>
> Are you suggesting it woul be better like this:
>
> "The main<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element> element
> and its children represent<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/rendering.html#represents>
>  the main content of the body<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-body-element> of
> a document or application. "
>
> if so i agree.
>
> regards
> Steve
>
>
>
> On 3 February 2013 09:13, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hmm... so you are suggesting it as a replacement for a <section> element?
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Silvia,
>>>
>>> I would suggest that it be worded thus:
>>>
>>> "The main<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element> element
>>> and its children represent<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 or application. "
>>>
>>> regards
>>> SteveF
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 February 2013 06:35, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Leif implied adopting the WHATWG wording from
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/67934d61a46c1a2d8f1203ed0084f19f63a18af0.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy with that.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any other wording that we would need to change to adopt it?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Silvia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Steve Faulkner <
>>>> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Leif,
>>>>>
>>>>> please file a bug against the html spec with details of how you think
>>>>> the wording could be improved
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> SteveF
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 February 2013 22:26, Leif Halvard Silli <
>>>>> xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> per the HTML5 definition, then <main> represents the main content
>>>>>> section of the body. For contrast, in the WHATWG definition, <main>
>>>>>> represents its children. And so,  if we have this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <main><h1>The article X!</h1></main>
>>>>>>        <p>The article continues here.</p>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, per HTML5, the <main> would also represent the <p> element.
>>>>>> Whereas in the WHATWG spec, it would only represent the <h1> element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the WHATWG approach makes more sense as it implies very
>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>> that all the main-content should be wrapped inside the <main> element.
>>>>>> The HTML5 specification in this aspect seems colored by the ARIA
>>>>>> specification. ARIA only operates with attributes. Thus could e.g. be
>>>>>> placed on an empty <img>, since it simply represents a place to jump.
>>>>>> Since HTML5 introduces an element replacement for the attribute, one
>>>>>> should take advantage of - and encourage - the advantages of an
>>>>>> element, namely that it can not only mark the landmark  - where the
>>>>>> main part begins, but can also show were it ends
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Emphasizing that <main> represents its children, could perhaps solve
>>>>>> the issue of multiple <main> elements as well: If each <main> (except
>>>>>> the topmost one) is required to be a child of another <main> element,
>>>>>> then I guess that current ATs will not be confused by it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leif H Silli
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Faulkner, Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:29:59 +0000:
>>>>>> > Hi Jeremy,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > "Oh, none. I would imagine that any instances of the main element
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> > don't correspond to the main landmark (i.e. any instances that
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> > scoped to the document body) wouldn't have any special semantics
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> > acc layer …they'd effectively be no different than divs."
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > what you appear to be saying is that structural elements such as
>>>>>> > header/footer if not scoped to the body should have a
>>>>>> presentational role
>>>>>> > only. I don't think its that simple.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The vast majority elements and attributes have some sort of mapping
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> > accessibility layer.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > ARIA is not used in the mapping of  the vast majority of
>>>>>> roles,states and
>>>>>> > properties , representations of them are exposed in the
>>>>>> accessibility APIs
>>>>>> > in cases where  no roles, states and properties native to the API's
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> > defined.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > regards
>>>>>> > SteveF
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On 1 February 2013 11:20, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> >>> for example I don't see how your suggested changes will benefit
>>>>>> users
>>>>>> >> who consume the semantics, what will the semantics of nested main
>>>>>> be when
>>>>>> >> mapped to the acc layer?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Oh, none. I would imagine that any instances of the main element
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> >> don't correspond to the main landmark (i.e. any instances that
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> >> scoped to the document body) wouldn't have any special semantics
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> >> acc layer …they'd effectively be no different than divs.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> And that prompts the question "well, why not just use a div,
>>>>>> then?" …which
>>>>>> >> is a fair question. But seeing as HTML5 introduces a few other new
>>>>>> elements
>>>>>> >> that (I believe) don't have any effect on the outline or on the
>>>>>> acc layer
>>>>>> >> (e.g. header and footer within sectioning content), then the
>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>> >> of a new element like main seems like a good opportunity to give
>>>>>> authors
>>>>>> >> the option of using a dedicated element in place of a generic div.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Cameron referred to this as "semantic sugar", which, while it was
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> >> meant as a negative term, is actually a pretty good way of
>>>>>> describe many of
>>>>>> >> the new elements in HTML5.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So my suggestion really just boils down to throwing a bone to
>>>>>> authors.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> As for use cases: every single use of a header or footer within
>>>>>> sectioning
>>>>>> >> content (other than the body element) is also a potential use case
>>>>>> >> for main.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Jeremy
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>