Exactly. It is a subtle point, but lists do not contain other lists, they
contain items which may be lists.
On 9/6/07, Karl Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> He's referring to how lists (UL and OL) are built up in the DOM (from
> the HTML). Lists can only have LI elements as children.
>
> So these are valid:
>
> <ul>
> <li>blah</li>
> </ul>
>
> <ul>
> <li>blah
> <ul>
> <li>blah</li>
> </ul>
> </li>
> </ul>
>
> But these are invalid:
>
> <ul>
> <ul>
> <li>blah</li>
> </ul>
> </ul>
>
> <ul>
> <li>blah</li>
> <ul>
> <li>blah</li>
> </ul>
> </ul>
>
> Browsers probably attempt to twist the invalid code into a valid
> format, but you can't be sure it's going be what you expect.
>
> Karl Rudd
>
> On 9/6/07, Pops <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Klaus,
> >
> > Today, this has thrown me for a loop:
> >
> > > Is that reallly the HTML? If so, it is invalid and you cannot expect
> any
> > > selector to be reliable in any browsers. I'm not refering to the
> missing
> > > slashes in the closing tag - I assume you just left them out in the
> > > example here -, but the incorrectly nested inner ul.
> >
> > I think I matched it as you think, wrapping LI around a UI
> >
> > <ul>
> > <li> item1 </li>
> > <li> Item2
> > <ul>
> > <li> item1 </li>
> > <li> item1 </li>
> > </ul>
> > </li>
> > </ul>
> >
> > But why is the followng is this invalid?
> >
> > <ul>
> > <li> item1 </li>
> > <li> Item2 </li>
> > <ul>
> > <li> item1 </li>
> > <li> item1 </li>
> > </ul>
> > </ul>
> >
> > The reason I ask is becaus thiis idiom you provided:
> >
> > The first li of a ul is:
> > $('ul>li:first-child')
> >
> > Works for both. I don't think neither are invalid.
> >
> > Are you referring to how menus plugins rely on a wrap?
> >
> > What I am missing?
> >
> > --
> > HLS
> >
> >
>
--
Ted
