W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > May 2011

[Bug 12609] Allow <ol>/<ul> to have <ol>/<ul> children

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:02:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QKoGl-0003S9-N3@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12609

--- Comment #3 from Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> 2011-05-13 09:02:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)

> Your code is not the same.  <li>foo<ol><li>bar</li></ol></li> and
> <li>foo</li><li><ol><li>bar</li></ol></li> have different meanings.  The first
> is a single item, which has a subitem.  The second is two separate items, the
> first of which has no subitems and the second of which has no content except
> one subitem.  I suggest the spec allow <li>foo</li><ol><li>bar</li></ol> as a
> synonym for the first case.  That's what I'm having the execCommand() spec
> produce right now in this case, for the reasons I gave -- it's easier to work
> with for this use-case.

I still have troubles to understand reasoning behing this change. What would be
meaning of <ol> acting as an item of list? If the meaning is that such <ol> is
list item then why not to surround it by <li> and have clean content model for
lists? If you are worried about additional bullet displayed in browser, then
solution is to disable such bullet in stylesheet.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 09:02:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:10 UTC