- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:11:33 -0500
- To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Cc: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org, Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com>, whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
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
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 14:12:02 UTC