<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:05 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
If i view the html-web as it is now, inside <body> there are so much irrelevant content (where else to put it?). In order for <body> to be the main content, there has to be tags for everything else. This will be very hard for authors to implement (I am talking real world, amateur, do-it-yourself, stressed professionals). It is IMHO very beautiful code-wise, and organisationally, to state that everything in <body> is main content, but it will not benefit a structurally marked-up web.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Thanks
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
/Daniel<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Ashley Sheridan <<A HREF="mailto:ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk">ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk</A>> wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I am the one posting the question on the help list. To me, the lack of html5 definition of main content, ie body copy in paper publishing, is a big mistake. Imagine the amount of sites where "everything else" includes a lot of unimportant extra, or peripheral, content. Content which is not necessarily hierarchically legible by a machine. Getting authors to be disciplined about defining main content is more important than being disciplined about <nav>, <footer>, <header>, <section> etc, in order not to negate the meaning of html5 structural mark-up. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Suggestion <bodycopy>... or, preferred, <bread>.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
/Daniel<BR>
<BR>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Smylers <<A HREF="mailto:Smylers@stripey.com">Smylers@stripey.com</A>> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The HTML5 spec should define how to mark up the main content on a page<BR>
(even if the answer is "by omission"). This is something that many<BR>
authors ask about, the latest example being today's thread on the help<BR>
mailing list:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2010-June/000561.html">http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2010-June/000561.html</A><BR>
<BR>
Please could this be added to the 'idioms' section, perhaps giving<BR>
examples of when <article> or <section> might be appropriate as well as<BR>
one in which the main content is simply that which isn't in <header>,<BR>
<aside>, etc.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
Smylers<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#888888">--</FONT><BR>
<FONT COLOR="#888888"><A HREF="http://twitter.com/Smylers2">http://twitter.com/Smylers2</A></FONT> <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
It's my understanding that everything within the <body> tag is considered body content, and the new <header> and <footer> tags, etc, are just there to give more meaning about the type of body content.<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
Thanks,<BR>
Ash<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk">http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
The fact that there is so much irrelevant content inside the <body> tag is because some people consider that body content. Do you have a more specific example of this?<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
Thanks,<BR>
Ash<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk">http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>