列表中链接的规范结构? [英] the canonical structure of links in lists?
问题描述
某人认为这种格式是可以接受的:
< ul>
< a href =" http://foo.com" ;>< li> Foo< / a>
< a href =" http://bar.com">< li> Bar< / a>
< / ul>
这种情况恰好无法在KHTML中正确显示,即Konqueror和
可能是Safari。
我建议应该如此:
< ul>
< li>< a href =" http ://foo.com"> Foo< / a>
< li>< a href =" http://bar.com"> Bar< / a>
< / ul>
他不同意。
是否有任何技术理由要求后者为前者?
..................................... ...............................
通过TITANnews发布 - 未经审查的新闻组访问
A certain person thinks this format is acceptable:
<ul>
<a href="http://foo.com"><li>Foo</a>
<a href="http://bar.com"><li>Bar</a>
</ul>
This happens to fail to display properly in KHTML, i.e. Konqueror and
probably Safari.
I suggest it should be thus:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://foo.com">Foo</a>
<li><a href="http://bar.com">Bar</a>
</ul>
He disagrees.
Is there any technical reason to prefer the latter to the former?
.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
- =每个新闻组 - 匿名,无保留,宽带下载= -
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
推荐答案
"福雷斯特"写道:
"Forrest" wrote:
[Re"< ul>< a href =" http://foo.com">< li> Foo< / a> .. 。"
vs."< ul>< li>< a href =" http://foo.com"> Foo< / a> ..."]
有没有技术上的理由让后者更喜欢前者?
[Re "<ul><a href="http://foo.com"><li>Foo</a>..."
vs. "<ul><li><a href="http://foo.com">Foo</a>..."]
Is there any technical reason to prefer the latter to the former?
根据HTML DTD(文档类型定义),UL元素只能
包含一个或多个LI元素,而LI元素可以包含块和内联元素的
(这是%flow表示的)
<!ELEMENT UL - - (LI)+ - 无序列表 - >
<!ELEMENT LI - O(%流量;) * - 列表项 - >
这意味着超链接应该在*里面* LI元素(即
"< li> ;< a>",not"< a>< li>"(隐含关闭"< / li>"标记)。
-
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
http://vzone.virgin.net /phil.ronan/
Forrest写道:
Forrest wrote:
某人认为这种格式是可以接受的:
< ul>
< a href =" http://foo.com">< li> Foo< / a>
< a href =" ; http://bar.com">< li> Bar< / a>
< / ul>
这种情况在KHTML中无法正常显示,即Konqueror和
可能是Safari。
我建议应该如此:
< ul>
< li>< a href =" http ://foo.com"> Foo< / a>
< li>< a href =" http://bar.com"> Bar< / a>
< / ul>
他不同意。
是否有任何技术理由偏爱后者?
A certain person thinks this format is acceptable:
<ul>
<a href="http://foo.com"><li>Foo</a>
<a href="http://bar.com"><li>Bar</a>
</ul>
This happens to fail to display properly in KHTML, i.e. Konqueror and
probably Safari.
I suggest it should be thus:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://foo.com">Foo</a>
<li><a href="http://bar.com">Bar</a>
</ul>
He disagrees.
Is there any technical reason to prefer the latter to the former?
让此人完成页面。然后让他或她在< URL:http://validator.w3.org/>进行测试
。这可以通过上传本地文件的
来完成;它不必安装在Web服务器上。
顺便说一下,由于Safari使用基于Gecko的HTML引擎,任何
问题Safari也可能影响Mozilla和Firefox。
-
David E. Ross
<网址:http://www.rossde.com/>
我使用Mozilla作为我的网络浏览器,因为我想要一个符合Web的浏览器
标准。请参阅< URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>。
Have this person complete the page. Then have him or her test it
at <URL:http://validator.w3.org/>. This can be done via an upload
of a local file; it doesn''t have to be installed on a Web server.
By the way, since Safari uses an HTML engine based on Gecko, any
problem with Safari likely affects Mozilla and Firefox, too.
--
David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>
I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
David Ross< no **** @ nowhere.not>写道:
David Ross <no****@nowhere.not> wrote:
顺便说一下,由于Safari使用基于Gecko的HTML引擎
By the way, since Safari uses an HTML engine based on Gecko
错误,Safari基于KHTML。
-
Spartanicus
Wrong, Safari is KHTML based.
--
Spartanicus
这篇关于列表中链接的规范结构?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持IT屋!