Shouldn't this be wrapped in an article?

[inetbiz]

https://github.com/11ty/eleventy-base-blog/blob/aa0db1449d84aadc8a13bdc2368c114c9e778740/_includes/layouts/base.njk#L30-L43

Shouldn't this be wrapped in an HTML5 article and an aside for the infobox? The infobox could have a rel=help.

https://github.com/11ty/eleventy-base-blog/blob/aa0db1449d84aadc8a13bdc2368c114c9e778740/_includes/layouts/base.njk#L39 This should be footer content in the article.

https://github.com/11ty/eleventy-base-blog/blob/aa0db1449d84aadc8a13bdc2368c114c9e778740/_includes/layouts/base.njk#L46 should be moved inside the article. IMHO

[cgwrench]

Hi @inetbiz!

Shouldn't this be wrapped in an HTML5 article […]

I don't think that this should be wrapped in an article. The page already has a main element, and adding an article doesn't add any value. This article from CSS Tricks is a long one, but goes into detail about how to structure HTML. See the code pen near the top of the article for the recommend structure, which deliberatley doesn't use an article to wrap the page content.

[…] and an aside for the infobox?

The infobox could be an aside. However, given that the point of that infobox is to be read and then deleted, I don't think there's much value is making this change, though I wouldn't mind if that change was made.

The infobox could have a rel=help.

I don't think the infobox should gain a rel="help", as rel isn't a valid attribute for an article. From an MDN article on the rel attribute:

The rel attribute defines the relationship between a linked resource and the current document. Valid on <link>, <a>, <area>, and <form> […]

In the same article, they note that the rel value of help is a "Link to context-sensitive help", which isn't what this content in the template is.

This should be footer content in the article.

Since I don't think this page should gain an article element, I don't think anything needs to happen with the footer.

[inetbiz]

Line 39 does NEED a footer. You can't insert a colophone in the content above the {{ content | safe }}

The copyright is related to doc and even mozilla says this is where copyright marks should be contained. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/footer

[cgwrench]

Apologies, in my original reply I was refferring to the footer on line 46. Sorry that I wasn't clearer about that.

For the content on line 39, I don't see anything about it that means it must be within a footer. The MDN article you link to suggests what may typically go into a footer, but nothing there suggests to me that what's written on line 39 must be a footer. Can you priovide some more information on why you think line 39 must be a footer?

The copyright is related to doc and even mozilla says this is where copyright marks should be contained.

I'm afraid I don't follow this. I'm not sure what copyright marks you are referring to. What I read on line 39 is some information and useful links about the template. That sounds like the main content for this page. Can you clarify what you mean here please?

Anyway, the content we're discussing is an initial signposting for users of this template, and is surrounded by a "Delete this message" instruction. While I support adopting more semantic elements where it makes sense, I'm not sure changing this content will add any more value to the template.