<CADJvFOXuNbDcFUCzZ5gk7uOz83rE54g4kbWAqvoETD7Tiv07+w@mail.gmail.com>
Current votes: None.
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=92t exactly say DIV is non-structural. There are such things as structural uses of DIV; it=92s more correct to say it=92s 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=92t 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. --=20 cheers, -ambrose