From fe45beae71c97938f2cb067e0ec22c1c7760eacf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "http://jmtd.livejournal.com/" <http://jmtd.livejournal.com/@web>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:57:19 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] response - you are correct, ULs require >= 1 LI children

---
 doc/bugs/map_fails_to_close_ul_element_for_empty_list.mdwn | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/bugs/map_fails_to_close_ul_element_for_empty_list.mdwn b/doc/bugs/map_fails_to_close_ul_element_for_empty_list.mdwn
index 4ce257252..a3bd3cc01 100644
--- a/doc/bugs/map_fails_to_close_ul_element_for_empty_list.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/map_fails_to_close_ul_element_for_empty_list.mdwn
@@ -38,3 +38,10 @@ Patch[[!tag patch]]:
 > could `map` instead delay emitting the first `<ul>` until it determines that
 > it will have at least one item? Perhaps refactoring that function into
 > something easier to regression-test would be useful. --[[smcv]]
+
+>> You are right (just checked 4.01 DTD to confirm). I suspect refactoring
+>> the function would be wise. From my brief look at it to formulate the
+>> above I thought it was a bit icky.  I'm not a good judge of what would
+>> be regression-test friendly but I might have a go at reworking it. With
+>> this variety of problem I have a strong inclination to use things like
+>> map. - [[Jon]]
-- 
2.45.0