Err hmmm I thought I explained it. Let me try again.
This is invalid:
<ul>
<ul><li></li></ul>
</ul>
This is valid:
<ul>
<li>
<ul><li></li></ul>
</li>
</ul>
Anything that you want to put as a "child" of a list has to be either
an LI or wrapped in an LI. That's just the way things are.
Hmmm let's see if I can't explain it another way...
The following is valid HTML (but not XHTML), as in HTML the </li> is "optional":
<ul>
<li>Blah
<li>Blah
</ul>
Now if you want to add a "sub-list" you could write it like this:
<ul>
<li>Blah
<li>Blah
<ul>
<li>Blah
</ul>
</ul>
To make the "containment" explicit, it would be the same as writing this:
<ul>
<li>Blah</li>
<li>Blah
<ul>
<li>Blah</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
So when you write:
<ul>
<li>Blah</li>
<li>Blah</li>
<ul>
<li>Blah</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Many browsers (IE being the chief example) turn it into this:
<ul>
<li>Blah</li>
<li>Blah
<ul>
<li>Blah</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Is that clear enough?
Karl Rudd
On 9/6/07, Pops <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
