I see what you're saying. You're worried that because there's a difference here, there might be a differnce in a non-broken document that we haven't found yet.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it until/unless there's an actual use case that's having this same problem on a non-broken DOM. - Brian > That's not what I'm looking for at all. The point was whether or not > .next() > is always returning the correct element in a given situation. It was > merely > a concern, not a request to make jQuery work on broken docs. > > Adam > > > Citrus wrote: >> >> It's hard enough to get everything working properly for documents that >> are >> well-formed. I don't think that it's worth the effort to force >> consistency in how jQuery handles broken documents. If you do anything >> on >> top of an invalid DOM, you can't make the results predictable. Even if >> you could, the code would be so huge that your page would never load. >> >> - Brian >> >> >>> Now, my mark-up is wrong. I should have wrapped the nested <ul> in >>> it's >>> own <li>, but I missed it. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jQuery mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://jquery.com/discuss/ >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/.next%28%29-bug--tf3309804.html#a9207359 > Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > [email protected] > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
