Re: [dita] Clarification of <itemgroup>

[Deborah_Pickett@moldflow.com]

"Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>
wrote on 21/06/2007 07:52:50 AM:
> 1. Allow everything allowed by <p> in <ph>
> 2. Allow itemgroup w/in <p> (and allow itemgroup to nest)

My gut feeling is that both of these subvert the spirit
of phrases and itemgroups.  They may solve your problem but they may
just as easily encourage users to abuse the elements to nest inappropriate
content.

> 3. Define a new wrapper base type analogous to itemgroup but more
generic.

In effect, the moral equivalent of HTML's <div>.
 I'm uneasy about the amount of rope that <div> gives users,
but I agree that for some specializations it might be a necessary base
element.

How do we discourage people from using this <div>-like
element to fake nested sections, or paragraphs-within-paragraphs?  Using
XML Schema or DTD descriptions of content models, we probably can't.