- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:04:34 -0700
I don't see what the problem here is. How is it wrong? Why can't a list be a type of list item? Focusing more on practicalities, every browser produces and deals correctly with this type of HTML. Given that contentEditable is used by just about every rich-text email or blog-posting service, it's not like browsers can stop supporting this without breaking a very long tail of sites with user-generated content. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome all nest lists inside lists when you call execCommand('indent') on a list item. What practical reason is there for them all to change this behavior? Ojan On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > > > > Hi, I just realized that in HTML4.01 spec, DTD doesn't seem to allow > > nested OL or UL without LI. See > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html#h-10.2 In fact, the > > nested list example is marked deprecated. But in practice, all major > > user agents produce nested list when execCommand("Indent"...) is > > executed. Is there any chance we can standardize nested lists, and in > > particular, what UA produce? > > I don't think nested lists really make much sense -- a list is a list of > items, and a nested list is just one of the items. > > > > For example, all major browsers (Firefox, IE, & WebKit) produce > > slightly different versions of HTML when indenting "item 2" in the > > following HTML (assume it's content-editable): > > <ol> > > <ol id="u1"><li id="i1">item 1</li></ol> > > <li id="i2">item 2</li> > > <ol id="u3"><li id="i3">item 3</li></ol> > > </ol> > > Well that's just very wrong on so many levels. I don't think we want to > condone it. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090903/a3b8d4aa/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 17:04:34 UTC