On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:05 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote: > 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. > > > > Thanks > /Daniel > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Ashley Sheridan > <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0200, Daniel Persson wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > Suggestion <bodycopy>... or, preferred, <bread>. > > > > > > /Daniel > > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Smylers > > <smyl...@stripey.com> wrote: > > > > The HTML5 spec should define how to mark up the main > > content on a page > > (even if the answer is "by omission"). This is > > something that many > > authors ask about, the latest example being today's > > thread on the help > > mailing list: > > > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2010-June/000561.html > > > > Please could this be added to the 'idioms' section, > > perhaps giving > > examples of when <article> or <section> might be > > appropriate as well as > > one in which the main content is simply that which > > isn't in <header>, > > <aside>, etc. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Smylers > > -- > > http://twitter.com/Smylers2 > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Thanks, > Ash > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > > > >
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? Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk