Re: [whatwg] "content" element, which we need in our documents

So, how do you propose to define what <content> represents?

As a container element it is a thematic grouping. This is identical to
<section> which is a thematic grouping with hierarchical context.

What do you want to be able to do? If it is to simply lookup the
"content" of the page as a unique concept, this is defined as an
article, which in turn may be nested.

You can not get around the implications of compound context, do you
seek to restrict <content> to a single instance per document? Are you
going to restrict <content> to a single instance per context? Or is it
a free element which can be defined anywhere and multiple times? a new
element does not offer any benefits over what is currently defined.

cam

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Aurelio De Rosa
<aurelioderosa@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Ian about the use of <article> and <section>, the
> specifications are really clear on those elements. The are used to wrap an
> entire entry, not the "content" (in the meaning Ian stated).
>
> The read question for me is: What is the problem of having the content at
> the same level of <header> and <footer> (for example inside an <article>)?
>
> Can't we treat everything inside an article which is not in <header> or
> <footer> is the real "content"?
>
> Best regards
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As described in whatwg specs, a <section>, in this context, is a thematic
>> grouping of content, typically with a heading.
>>
>> As for a <article>, which usually contains its own <header> and <footer>,
>> is used to form an independent content like blog entry, comment, or
>> application.
>>
>> Both section and article elements are not the candidate for containing a
>> website or a blog entry's main content. That obviously is the reason that
>> the example of the nav in HTML5 spec doesn't use them.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ian Yang
>>
>> 2012/6/29 Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
>>
>> > If the content is a special section within the document you should use
>> > the <section> element which has semantic meaning over <div>.
>> > Alternatively you could use <article> if it's distinct and
>> > self-contained. These two elements serve to disambiguate the abstract
>> > idea of content into something with semantic meaning which can be
>> > instrumented by document consumers.
>> >
>> > cam
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Ashley Sheridan
>> > <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>Hi editors in chief and everyone else,
>> > >>
>> > >>How have you been recently?
>> > >>
>> > >>As many of you may have been aware that there is an important
>> > >>sectioning
>> > >>element we have been short of for a long time: the "content" element.
>> > >>
>> > >>Remember how we sectioned our documents in those old days? It's the
>> > >>meaningless <div>s. We used them and added id="header", id="content",
>> > >>id="sidebar", and id="footer" to them.
>> > >>
>> > >>After HTML5 came out, we started to have new and semantic elements like
>> > >>"header", "aside", and "footer" to improve our documents.
>> > >>
>> > >>However, today, we are still using the meaningless <div> for our
>> > >>content.
>> > >>
>> > >>The main content forms an important region. And we often wrap it with
>> > >>an
>> > >>element. By doing so, we distinguish the region from the header and the
>> > >>footer, and also prevent all of its child elements (block level or
>> > >>inline
>> > >>level) being incorrectly at the same level as the header and the
>> > >>footer.
>> > >>
>> > >>In the first example of the intro section of the nav element in HTML5
>> > >>Spec
>> > >>( http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#the-nav-element ) (the
>> > >>page
>> > >>takes a while to be fully loaded), the bottom note states: "Notice the
>> > >>div
>> > >>elements being used to wrap all the contents of the page other than the
>> > >>header and footer, and all the contents of the blog entry other than
>> > >>its
>> > >>header and footer."
>> > >>
>> > >>This example mentioned above is a typical situation that we need an
>> > >>element
>> > >>for the main content. So instead of keep wrapping our contents with the
>> > >>meaningless <div>, why not let the "content" element join HTML5?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>Sincerely,
>> > >>Ian Yang
>> > >>Meaningful and semantic HTML lover  |  Front-end developer
>> > >
>> > > I am pretty sure this was discussed a few months back and the answer
>> was
>> > that everything is content, so no need for a content element. The
>> <header>
>> > and <footer> just mark up areas of that content with special meaning, but
>> > its still all the main content.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Ash
>> > > http://ashleysheridan.co.uk
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Aurelio De Rosa
> email: aurelioderosa@gmail.com
> email:  a.derosa@audero.it
> website: www.audero.it
> user group: ug.audero.it

Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 13:58:14 UTC