W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: <di>? Please?

From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:11:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CADJvFOXuNbDcFUCzZ5gk7uOz83rE54g4kbWAqvoETD7Tiv07+w@mail.gmail.com>
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 wonít exactly say DIV is non-structural.  There are such things as
structural uses of DIV; itís more correct to say itís 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 donít 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.

Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 14:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:11 UTC