[whatwg] "content" element, which we need in our documents
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Aug 30 11:10:15 PDT 2012
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Ian Yang wrote:
>
> As many of you may have been aware that there is an important sectioning
> element we have been short of for a long time: the "content" element.
That's <body>, as far as I can tell.
> Remember how we sectioned our documents in those old days? It's the
> meaningless <div>s. We used them and added id="header", id="content",
> id="sidebar", and id="footer" to them.
Having now got <header>, <aside>, and <footer>, the content that is left,
more or less by process of elimination, is the content.
> However, today, we are still using the meaningless <div> for our
> content.
Why?
> This example mentioned above is a typical situation that we need an
> element for the main content. So instead of keep wrapping our contents
> with the meaningless <div>, why not let the "content" element join
> HTML5?
What would the element _mean_? If it's just "the main content", then that
is what the element's contents would mean even without the element, so
really it means the element is meaningless. And in that case, <div> is
perfect, since that's what it is: a grouping element with no meaning.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Cameron Jones wrote:
>
> If the content is a special section within the document you should use
> the <section> element which has semantic meaning over <div>.
> Alternatively you could use <article> if it's distinct and
> self-contained. These two elements serve to disambiguate the abstract
> idea of content into something with semantic meaning which can be
> instrumented by document consumers.
Indeed, dependong on what exactly you mean by "content" these might be
more appropriate.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Ian Yang wrote:
>
> As described in whatwg specs, a <section>, in this context, is a
> thematic grouping of content, typically with a heading.
>
> As for a <article>, which usually contains its own <header> and
> <footer>, is used to form an independent content like blog entry,
> comment, or application.
>
> Both section and article elements are not the candidate for containing a
> website or a blog entry's main content. That obviously is the reason
> that the example of the nav in HTML5 spec doesn't use them.
The element that contains "a website or a blog entry's main content" is
<body>, as far as I can tell.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Aurelio De Rosa wrote:
>
> I agree with Ian about the use of <article> and <section>, the
> specifications are really clear on those elements. The are used to wrap
> an entire entry, not the "content" (in the meaning Ian stated).
Well, the "content" is what is left after you take out the stuff that
isn't the "content" (<header>, <footer>, etc).
> The read question for me is: What is the problem of having the content
> at the same level of <header> and <footer> (for example inside an
> <article>)?
>
> Can't we treat everything inside an article which is not in <header> or
> <footer> is the real "content"?
That's the intent of the spec, right.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Ian Yang wrote:
>
> By analyzing the example in HTML5 spec, wrapping all content elements
> can make the structure of the document become more organized. After all,
> content elements all being at the same level of <header> and <footer> is
> unreasonable, and sometimes looks messy, especially when there are many
> different kinds of content elements (p, figure, pre, a, table, ......
> etc).
I don't understand what the problem is here. How is it "messy"?
If you just want to group some elements together without giving them any
special meaning, that's what <div> is for.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> ARIA fills the gap in HTML with role="main"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#main
This role is unnecessary in HTML documents, since browsers can skip the
non-main content. That's the whole point of elements like <nav>.
> I agree that an explicit element would be nice, but the powers that be
> have rejected the idea.
It's not clear what the idea is, so it's hard to say that it has been
rejected. :-)
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Aaron Gustafson wrote:
>
> I’m with Steve here. With so much parity between ARIA and HTML5 with
> regard to landmarks, it would be nice if we could simplify things with a
> content/primary/main element.
Could you elaborate on what this element would do and/or mean?
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg
mailing list