W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2010

[whatwg] 'Main Part of the Content' Idiom

From: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:10:21 +0100
Message-ID: <1275664221.2217.77.camel@localhost>
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:05 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:

> If i view the html-web as it is now, inside <body> there are so much
> irrelevant content (where else to put it?). In order for <body> to be
> the main content, there has to be tags for everything else. This will
> be very hard for authors to implement (I am talking real world,
> amateur, do-it-yourself, stressed professionals). It is IMHO very
> beautiful code-wise, and organisationally, to state that everything in
> <body> is main content, but it will not benefit a structurally
> marked-up web.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> /Daniel
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>         
>         On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:
>         
>         > I am the one posting the question on the help list. To me,
>         > the lack of html5 definition of main content, ie body copy
>         > in paper publishing, is a big mistake. Imagine the amount of
>         > sites where "everything else" includes a lot of unimportant
>         > extra, or peripheral, content. Content which is not
>         > necessarily hierarchically legible by a machine. Getting
>         > authors to be disciplined about defining main content is
>         > more important than being disciplined about <nav>, <footer>,
>         > <header>, <section> etc, in order not to negate the meaning
>         > of html5 structural mark-up. 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > Suggestion <bodycopy>... or, preferred, <bread>.
>         > 
>         > 
>         > /Daniel
>         > 
>         > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Smylers
>         > <Smylers at stripey.com> wrote:
>         > 
>         >         The HTML5 spec should define how to mark up the main
>         >         content on a page
>         >         (even if the answer is "by omission"). This is
>         >         something that many
>         >         authors ask about, the latest example being today's
>         >         thread on the help
>         >         mailing list:
>         >         http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2010-June/000561.html
>         >         
>         >         Please could this be added to the 'idioms' section,
>         >         perhaps giving
>         >         examples of when <article> or <section> might be
>         >         appropriate as well as
>         >         one in which the main content is simply that which
>         >         isn't in <header>,
>         >         <aside>, etc.
>         >         
>         >         Thanks.
>         >         
>         >         Smylers
>         >         --
>         >         http://twitter.com/Smylers2 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         It's my understanding that everything within the <body> tag is
>         considered body content, and the new <header> and <footer>
>         tags, etc, are just there to give more meaning about the type
>         of body content.
>         
>         Thanks,
>         Ash
>         http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
> 

The fact that there is so much irrelevant content inside the <body> tag
is because some people consider that body content. Do you have a more
specific example of this?

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100604/d274f255/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 08:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC