- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:20:53 +1100
- To: Tim Leverett <zzzzbov@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Tim Leverett <zzzzbov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Con: Adding a <main> element adds redundancy to the [role="main"] > attribute. > > I don't see why this is a con, if main is mapped to role=main in the > browser it means that authors won't have to. Also adding > aside/article/footer etc adds redundancy to the matching ARIA roles. > > Redundancy tends to be a source of error if they get out of sync. If one > browser supports [role="main"] and another supports <main>, both would be > needed to provide compatibility. Obviously this is a bit contrived, as > browsers supporting <main> would likely also support [role="main"], but > older versions would not support <main> . Going forward, this would mean > that authors wanting to use <main> would have to use <main role="main"> for > backwards compatibility. > Actually, there's a good point: I would actually add this: if <main> or an element with @role="main" exist on the page, there is no need to run the Scooby-Doo algorithm and that element can just be chosen as the <main> element. Silvia.
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 00:26:20 UTC