> > I neither write nor speak English natively, but I believe that the > body element has to > be preserved all but as it is, if only for compatibility. Instead, you > should propose > putting the main content inside another element inside the body element, > say > <content>. > I agree, <body> must remain for compatibility, perhaps also able a new tag for its task, and deprecate its current meaning in future versions. <content> may be a good option as a <header> and <footer> sibling. And say "not required, but if implemented, do it the right way".
2011/3/1 Bjartur Thorlacius <svartma...@gmail.com> > On 3/1/11, usuario <soyh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let me put it in others words. Following the last example. > > > > Here is the way i see it, > > Everything inside a word document IS CONTENT (not body). In that document > we > > may have or not a header, or a footer, but we always "should" have a > body, > > in this word document, for convenience purposes text by default is > intended > > to be body (hence no need to mark it as that). > > > I neither write nor speak English natively, but I believe that the > body element has to > be preserved all but as it is, if only for compatibility. Instead, you > should propose > putting the main content inside another element inside the body element, > say > <content>. Alternatively, you could try using <article>, but <article> > has further > semantics, and is thus unsuitable for wrapping the main content of an > index (that is > an index). IMO, HTML isn't a good format for indexes, but that's > probably only IMO. > > > In HTML, as you say, everything by default is body (about the same a a > word > > document). But the thing is that in HTML5, WE ARE making distinctions > among > > *header* and *footer* content. My only counter here is why aren't we > making > > distinctions of body content too? > > > > Is this semantic to you? > > <body> > > <header></header> > > <footer></footer> > > </body> > > There is an obvious (may be not dangerous) semantic issue there. Why in > the > > world a footer can be inside a body, aren't they siblings of a document? > > > > To me (but hope you too), something semantic would be this: > > <content> > > <header></header> > > <body></body> > > <footer></footer> > > </content> > > > > I've been requested to solve a problem. Former has never been a problem, > web > > as worked well in that way. I just am setting out a new way of thinking > > about html. Being more declarative. > > > As previously stated, we can't change the semantics an content model of > <body>. > OTOH, it may be possible to put information that may be presented as a > footer in > <head>. <Head> poses strict constraints on both descendant nodes and > position > in the document (it must come first). > It may thus be more suitable to specify a new element positioned > _after_ </body> > containing information that belongs neither to head nor body. This > would probably > replace <aside>, which IMO has no place in body which is intended to be > loosely > linear. Also, I think that most information that's rendered in a > footer should be > marked up in the head, or as more general metadata fields such as RFC 2822 > headers or file xattrs. Headers seem to consist mostly of navigational > links, more > appropriately marked up with <link>s. > Again, The inconvenient "buddy" element strikes back.
