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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
