- From: Laurent Carcone <carcone@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:27:05 +0200
- To: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
- CC: "www-amaya@w3.org" <www-amaya@w3.org>
Hello Steven, Indeed, the behaviour is different in XML editing mode if the cursor is positioned at the end of an <li> or within an <li>. In the first case, a return creates an empty <p> and a second return creates a new <li>. In the second case, a return creates a <p> with the right part of the <li>, a second return creates an empty <p> and a third return creates an <li>. So, if I am right, a return when the selection is on an empty element creates a new "upper level" element in the structure and a return when the selection is on a non-empty element creates a new element at the same level. I don't know if this behaviour can be modified for some specific cases, we'll discuss it. A possible go-round in this case is to switch to 'Text' editing mode (the text area at the bottom right of the window) to split the <li>in one hit, then to switch back to 'XML' editing mode. Hope this helps, Laurent Carcone Steven Pemberton wrote: > A problem that I regularly have to deal with (typically turning a text > file into HTML) is what happens when splitting <li>s. > > Take this situation (| is the cursor positioned before "two" within an > <li>). I want to split the <li> into two <li>s: > > * One |two > * Three > > 1. hit return > > * One > |two > * Three > > 2 So far so good; this I expect. Hit return again (here is where it > goes wrong): > > * One > | > two > * Three > > 3 This is not what I had expected. However, hit return again: > * One > * | > * two > * Three > > 4 Now you have to do a backspace: > > * One | > * two > * Three > > And you have the result I wanted. I would expect that hitting return > in step 2 would give me step 4. > > The reverse, joining two <li>s works exactly as I would expect it to > work. Starting from step 4: > > * One > * |two > * Three > > Hitting backspace gives step 2: > > * One > |two > * Three > > Backspace again give step 1: > > * One two > * Three > > So in short, I would like these two (splitting and joining) to work > symmetrically. > > Thanks! > > Best wishes, > > Steven Pemberton > >
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 15:27:40 UTC