What TJ meant is that:

<ul>
  <li>
    <ul>
     <li></li>
    </ul>
  </li>
  <li></li>
</ul>

is valid. but:

<ul>
  <ul>
     <li></li>
  </ul>
  <li></li>
</ul>

is NOT (as you have a a UL that is  a DIRECT child of another UL).


On Mar 14, 2:51 pm, Walter Lee Davis <wa...@wdstudio.com> wrote:
> It is valid in XHTML 1.0 Strict -- I'm working on something similar  
> and just tested my code because you scared me.
>
> This is precisely how you make nested lists that look (and are  
> semantically) like this:
>
> * List item 1
>         o List item 1a
>         o List item 1b
>                 - List item 1b1
> etc.
>
> Walter
>
> On Mar 14, 2009, at 6:38 AM, T.J. Crowder wrote:
>
> > (An OT point: I'm not at all sure UL is allowed as a direct child of
> > UL; certainly not in XHTML transitional.  Might be worth rejigging a
> > bit.  http://validator.w3.org/is useful.)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to