- From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:21:03 -0500
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>, Tim Leverett <zzzzbov@gmail.com>
On 15 November 2012 19:20, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What if both exist but are different elements? -- Eitan Adler
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 01:45:10 UTC