- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:21:17 +0000
- To: Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=9fHYOMd-O=rzAgrdn-ctEDUgyqN9s+x4PhChSV_eoCw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Ian, > Ian Hixie, he mentioned that the existence of the ARIA landmark role "main" is a mistake >That's very thought-provoking how so? hixie offers no concrete reasons and there are concrete use cases for role=main and <main> none of which hixie has managed to dispute. both role=main and now <main> are part of the web platform and interoperably implemented across browsers and assistive technology, so I suggest that they will not be discarded even due to an opinion of Hixie's with regards -- SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> On 23 March 2013 14:57, Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com> wrote: > Hi editors and all other folks, > > In a previous discussion with Ian Hixie, he mentioned that the existence > of the ARIA landmark role "main" is a mistake. In other words, the role > "main" should not have been introduced. > > That's very thought-provoking. I used to be one of those who supported the > adoption of the HTML5 <main> element. Yet after reconsidering the above > theory these days, I seem to gradually realize that a mechanism for > differentiating main contents from other contents is not always necessary. > > I may have missed a past discussion about this topic. Could someone point > me out a resource? Personally, I think this topic is very worth discussing. > However, it might lead to discards of the ARIA landmark role "main" and the > HTML5 <main> element. > > > Sincerely, > Ian Yang >
Received on Saturday, 23 March 2013 15:22:26 UTC