Re: [whatwg] A plea to Hixie to adopt <main>

I generally markup pages using ARIA roles:

<header role=banner>
<article role=main> 
<footer role=contentinfo>

and variations thereafter—

If there were to be a <main> attribute (with an implicit ARIA role to match), where would it end? <contentinfo> <banner> ?
What is to be gained by adding an element, rather than using ARIA roles? Isn't that what ARIA is designed for? 

On 08/11/2012, at 1:23 AM, "Simon Pieters" <> wrote:

> Hi,
> My impression from TPAC is that implementors are on board with the idea of adding <main> to HTML, and we're left with Hixie objecting to it.
> Hixie's argument is, I think, that the use case that <main> is intended to address is already possible by applying the Scooby-Doo algorithm, as James put it -- remove all elements that are not main content, <header>, <aside>, etc., and you're left with the main content.
> I think the Scooby-Doo algorithm is a heuristic that is not reliable enough in practice, since authors are likely to put stuff outside the main content that do not get filtered out by the algorithm, and vice versa.
> Implementations that want to support a "go to main content" or "highlight the main content", like Safari's Reader Mode, or whatever it's called, need to have various heuristics for detecting the main content, and is expected to work even for pages that don't use any of the new elements. However, I think using <main> as a way to opt out of the heuristic works better than using <aside> to opt out of the heuristic. For instance, it seems reasonable to use <aside> for a pull-quote as part of the main content, and you don't want that to be excluded, but the Scooby-Doo algorithm does that.
> If there is anyone besides from Hixie who objects to adding <main>, it would be useful to hear it.
> -- 
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:36:13 UTC