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 17:07:14 +0100
Message-ID: <1275667634.2217.80.camel@localhost>
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 18:03 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:
> Some websites are very crowded. I have no particular example. Blogs
> and easily accessible CMS's, people trying to make a buck from
> excessive advertising on their site, people cramming a lot of
> info/screen unit. Companies too, old media: http://www.aftonbladet.se/
> (major Swedish paper, watch your eyes) . <body> will hold a lot of
> stuff that is not main content, other content will spill over into
> <body> (unless there is a conscious author, and vast use of <aside>). 
> It should be easy for authors to define main content. It s a
> pedagogical issue, where authors not too concerned with standards
> compliance, should have an easy escape of at least defining the most
> important on the site.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> /Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>         
>         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
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 


I believe there was a proposal for an <advert> tag purely for adverts (I
don't remember where I heard it) but it wasn't a realistic idea. If we
could easily identify content we didn't want to see, and could strip it
out before it even got to our browser, what incentive would people have
to use it if the adverts are their only source of revenue? As such, it's
not very feasible to distinguish between different types of content, and
even if there were tags, a lot of people wouldn't use them because it
would have a negative impact.

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100604/84d1fbb2/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 09:07:14 UTC

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