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
>
>
