>> Con: Adding a <main> element adds redundancy to the [role="main"] attribute. > 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 backwards compatibility. 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. >> Con: Implementing the <main> element in a backwards compatible manner >> requires JavaScript. > it is/was the same for any of the new structural elements. Yes, and that's a con for using any of the newer HTML5 elements over ARIA roles. > authors can use more granular elements within the <main> element, to structure content, example: > <main> > <article/> > <aside> advertisements</aside> > <article/> > </main> Good point on the <aside> I hadn't thought of that. ☺ On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Ian Yang <i...@invigoreight.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Ian Yang <i...@invigoreight.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Tim Leverett <zzzz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Personally, I'd rather see <main> be more about marking up content in > >> general, such as in this example which is invalid given the current > state > >> of the spec: > >> <article id=1> > >> <header /> > >> <main /> > >> <footer /> > >> </article> > >> <article id=2> > >> <header /> > >> <main /> > >> <footer /> > >> </article> > >> > >> ...although this would probably fit better as a <content> element, and > >> would require a whole other line of discussion that can wait for another > >> day. > >> > >> ☺ > >> > > > > That's a good idea. We really need an element to wrap all the <p>s, > <ul>s, > > <ol>s, <figure>s, <table>s ... etc of a blog post. > > > > I'm sorry, but I have to eat my above words. > > Previously I proposed that <main> being a sectioning element for a better > document outline ( > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19591#c0). So the use > of <main>s in all blog posts won't help improving the > document outline. > > > Regards, > Ian Yang >
