Re: <di>? Please?

2012/2/4 Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>:
> DIV is not anything. It's _common_ (one of two: block-level DIV and
> inline SPAN) nonstructural HTML-container intended _solely_ to apply
> _styles_ to it, and nothing should prevent it to be used anywhere
> where another block-level element can be used.

I won’t exactly say DIV is non-structural.  There are such things as
structural uses of DIV; it’s more correct to say it’s an HTML
container with undefined semantics (defined by conventions) and/or
undefined style (defined by stylesheets).

[...]
> AFAIK, the limitation "list items must be direct children of list"
> has been invented long before common containers (DIV/SPAN) has been
> invented. So, while it was reasonable initially to disallow alien
> _structural_ children of lists (for example, H2 as direct child of UL
> would be semantically pointless indeed), it's currently unreasonable
> to disallow common containers as nonstructural children of lists.

I don’t even know if the structural/non-structural division even makes
sense. Even HTML5 calls P structural, but any writer, editor, or
proofreader can tell us that P cannot possibly be structural the way
it is defined.

-- 
cheers,
-ambrose