[whatwg] A plea to Hixie to adopt <main>
faulkner.steve at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 07:16:17 PST 2012
>> Con: Adding a <main> element adds redundancy to the [role="main"]
> 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
yes this is true, same goes for the other new elements today. I see little
issue with the redundancy though as the roles match the elements.
I could be wrong on this, but I was pretty certain that <article> and the
rest were supported by browsers before the ARIA roles model.
no - the majority of accessibility APIs did/do not have non ARIA based
roles specified for header/footer/article/aside etc
some APIs are adding roles based on ARIA (Mac AX, Iaccessible2 etc)
accessibility implementation in browsers for the semantics of these
elements is variable 
More information about the whatwg