RE: Ordered Lists

The problem is, Cindy, that the original document had the closing </li> tag
in the wrong place.  So, yes, I'm not surprised that removing it causes the
document to validate.

The correct way to nest an <ol> tag is:

<ol>
 <li>blah
	<ol>
	 <li>blah</li>
	</ol>
 </li>
 <li>blah</li>
</ol>

Note the closing </li> AFTER the nested <ol>.  You need to put your nested
<ol> INSIDE the <li> container.

In HTML, you do have the option to omit the closing </li>, however, if you
choose to use it (which is recommended), make sure you've got it after the
</ol>.

Hope this helps,

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Cindy Stanley, SSS
> WebWorks
> Sent: 02 September 2000 06:54
> To: Frank Boumphrey; hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Re: Ordered Lists
>
>
> From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman(at)ix.netcom.com>
> >I should also have mentioned that you version has the nested
> ol elements a
> >children of li elements, unlike the original, so it should
> validate unlike
> >the original.
>
> "unlike the original" is not the case. The only thing I did
> w/ the original
> document in question was simply highlight the </li>'s and
> delete them. I did
> not add anything, nor restructure any original html.
>
> --
> Cindy K. Stanley
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Cindy Stanley, SSS WebWorks" <stanleysupport(at)prodigy.net>
> >To: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman(at)ix.netcom.com>;
> <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
> >
> >> Cindy Stanley wrote:
> >> >> <li> is a singleton tag, requiring no closing. The end tag is
> optional.
> >> >> Remove all your </li> and the document will validate under your
> >> > >transitional doctype.
> >> >>but, it does (validate)... go figure.
> >>
> >> From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman(at)ix.netcom.com>
> >> >then the validator you are using is wrong.
> >>
> >> hmmm ... I don't think so, at least not in my opinion :)
> >>
> >>  >Try using the W3C validator written incidently by an HWG member!
> >>
> >> "Incidently", that is the only validator *this HWG member*
> uses. I would
> >> have never mentioned it validated, if I hadn't checked w/
> the W3C first.
> >>
> >> <http://www.ssswebworks.com/hwgoltest.htm>
> >>
> >> see for yourself
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA