RE: Ordered Lists
by "tim booker" <timbooker(at)btinternet.com>
||Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:15:05 +0100
SSS WebWorks'" <stanleysupport(at)prodigy.net>,
"'Frank Boumphrey'" <bckman(at)ix.netcom.com>,
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:
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
Hope this helps,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Cindy Stanley, SSS
> 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>;
> >> Cindy Stanley wrote:
> >> >> <li> is a singleton tag, requiring no closing. The end tag is
> >> >> 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