[webstrand]

Perhaps a better way to think of it is: HTML doesn't provide enough distinct element types to accurately capture the semantic structure of modern interfaces.

You're right that some coupling is inevitable, but the question is where to put it. I'd rather couple my styles to semantic intent (what something is) than to DOM structure (where something sits).

I don't add classes where I don't need to style anything, and I'm not adding _extra_ divs. Instead of using HTML element names, I'm using my own semantic naming convention that is not strictly tied to the behavior of HTML elements.

For instance `<a class="navbar-button">`, `<button class="navbar-button">`, or `<div class="animation-wrapper"><button class="navbar-button">` can all be selected by the same `.navbar-button`. Whereas the equivalent structural selector `nav > ul > li > :is(a, button, .animation-wrapper > button)`, is fragile and complex. Additionally you can't use a descendant combinator instead to simplify, because there could be other non-navbar button descendants of a navbar item (for ex. a dark/light mode switch).

This gets even worse with modern CSS features. Say you want a hover animation that uses container queries - you'll need to add a wrapper div around your button to establish the container context. That single structural change breaks not just `nav > ul > li > button`, but also related selectors like `button + button` for spacing or `li:has(button)` for parent styles. Using structural selectors leads to selector complexity as you're forced to be more and more specific with your selectors to avoid parts of structure you shouldn't be styling.

I still use semantic markup wherever possible, I think its a great benefit for accessibility tools and automated information extraction. I just don't think its a good idea to use it for styling. And modern CSS gives us lots of tools to break HTML semantic markup like `display: contents` (especially useful for html table syntax).

[taeric]

Ok, I don't think I disagree that much. Was more just curious on what you meant. I view the structure as already something happening to describe things in ways that facilitate styling. But, this is a lot like the distinction between attributes and children in XML. I think people give it a little more thought than it warrants.

To that end, I think I can get behind the idea of "if you are going to use classes anyway, might as well use them for all of it." That is, having some that are done by structure and some that are done by class seems to be the a dangerous mix.