Sorry if I am a dounce, but I still don't see the invalidity of it.
Do you have an example to show how this is incorrect in relationship
to anything (DOM? CSS?) ?
The technical problem I see using this wrapping method is that you get
redundant (bubbling?) events. Is that right?
Thanks
--
HLS
On Sep 6, 1:57 am, "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
