Roger has put his recommendation on a new post (header body footer), I have put my response on there. I don't see this particular suggestion as viable, for details please see the other post.
Personally I would love to have a <main> element because I think there is a really useful purpose; I find it much richer to use <article><header/><main/><footer/></article> than <article><header/><div/><footer/></article> but I have no specific use-cases which are not currently supported just a general feeling that we've documented a number of common idioms and this seems to be one that's missing. Mat Carey -- Web Developer & Consultant m...@matcarey.co.uk www.matcarey.co.uk On 9 Nov 2012, at 19:36, Roger Hågensen <resca...@emsai.net> wrote: > On 2012-11-08 10:51, Steve Faulkner wrote: >> What the relevant new data clearly indicates is that in approx 80% of cases >> when authors identify the main area of content it is the part of the >> content that does not include header, footer or navigation content. >> >> >> It also indicates that where skip links are present or role=main is used >> their position correlates highly with the use of id values designating the >> main content area of a page. >> > > I'm wondering if maybe the following might satisfy both "camps" ? > > Example1: > <!doctype html> > <html> > <head> > <title>test</title> > </head> > <div>div before body</div> > <body>body text</body> > <div>div after body</div> > </html> > > Example2: > <!doctype html> > <html> > <head> > <title>test</title> > </head> > <header>header before body</header> > <body>body text</body> > <footer>footer after body</footer> > </html> > > > A html document ALWAYS has a body. So why not adjust the specs and free the > placement of <body>, > thus allowing div and header and footer blocks before/after. > Curretly http://validator.w3.org/check gives warning, but that is easily > fixed by allowing it. > The other issue is how will older browser handle this (backwards > compatibility) and how much/little work is it to allow this in current > browsers? > > I'd rather see <body> unchained a little than having <main> added that would > be almost the same thing. > And if you really need to layout/place something "inside" <body> then use a > <article> or <div> instead of a <main>. > > <body> already have a semantic meaning that's been around since way back > when, so why not unchain it? > As long as <body> and </body> are within <html> and </html> it shouldn't > matter if anything is before or after it. > > Only issue that might be confusing would be > Example3: > <!doctype html> > <html> > <head> > <title>test</title> > </head> > <header>header before body</header> > <body>body text</body> > <article>article outside body</article> > <footer>footer after body</footer> > </html> > > In my mind this does not make sense at all. > So maybe Example2 should be used to "unchain" <body> a little. > > Example2: > <!doctype html> > <html> > <head> > <title>test</title> > </head> > <header>header before body</header> > <body>body text</body> > <footer>footer after body</footer> > </html> > > Example4: > <!doctype html> > <html> > <head> > <title>test</title> > </head> > <body> > <header>header before body</header> > <div>body text</div> > <footer>footer after body</footer> > </body> > </html> > > Example 4 is how I do it on some projects, while what I actually wish I could > do is Example 2 above. > Maybe simply unchaining <body> enough to allow one <header> and one <footer> > outside (but inside <html>) would be enough to satisfy people's need? > I wondered since the start why <header> and <footer> could not be outside > <body>, it seems so logical after all! > > -- > Roger "Rescator" Hågensen. > Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/ >
