Re: Context of the main element

Can you adapt your patch?
Silvia.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Silvia,
> >Is your concern the mention of its children? I'm ok with leaving that out
> - it does seem a bit strange.
>
> yes given the pattern of other definitions it appears unnecessary.
>
>
> regards
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 7 February 2013 23:07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Is your concern the mention of its children? I'm ok with leaving that out
>> - it does seem a bit strange.
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>