On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 19:20, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Tim Leverett <zzzz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> 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. > >> > > > > > > Actually, there's a good point: I would actually add this: if <main> or > an > > element with @role="main" exist on the page, there is no need to run the > > Scooby-Doo algorithm and that element can just be chosen as the <main> > > element. > > What if both exist but are different elements? > Good question. I'd likely choose <main> over @role=main. Silvia.