Closed
Bug 293070
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
[FIX]Ordered lists (<ol> tags) inside <font> display all 0s
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect, P2)
Core
Layout
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.8beta2
People
(Reporter: tom, Assigned: bzbarsky)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: qawanted, regression)
Attachments
(3 files)
114 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.31 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
2.18 KB,
patch
|
dbaron
:
review+
dbaron
:
superreview+
dbaron
:
approval1.8b2+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050504 Firefox/1.0+ Ordered lists typically go like this: 1. Item! 2. Item! 3. Item! They are currently going like this: 0. Item! 0. Item! 0. Item! Apparently Gecko forgot how to count.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050505 Firefox/1.0+ He is indeed correct, they are broken on that page. Unfortunately, I am unable to see them broken on other pages using ordered lists. For example, the 403 page on my site uses an ordered list, and appears correctly in latest-trunk. http://knightsoftriumph.com/403.shtml <Tom> Tristor: probably quirks mode ols, google cant code Perhaps he has something there, perhaps not. Removing regression from the keywords since the bug that caused this to regress is not identified. Added regression? to the status whiteboard, and the qawanted keyword for help in finding what caused this issue, I am going to go ahead and confirm this, since I think maybe Tom has the right idea there with the Quirks Mode ols being rendered differently than those on valid pages (like mine).
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
Happened on at least Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050419 Firefox/1.0+ already. Also, Google has a <font> tag inside the <ol> but outside the <li>s.
(In reply to comment #2) > Happened on at least Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) > Gecko/20050419 Firefox/1.0+ already. Also, Google has a <font> tag inside the > <ol> but outside the <li>s. Oooh, naughty. I thought Google hired the best and the brightest, they must be slacking off. Didn't their momma ever teach them that using markup for styling was bad?
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
See bug 4522. The parser can work around this by not allowing <font> to contain <li>, but then the list items won't get the correct font. I'm not sure what exactly we want to do.
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
By the "list items" I mean the "list numbers".
(In reply to comment #4) > See bug 4522. > > The parser can work around this by not allowing <font> to contain <li>, but then > the list items won't get the correct font. I'm not sure what exactly we want to do. I am kind of curious why it breaks, because technically (assuming you are being daft and using presentational markup instead of stylesheets) as long as the <font> tag is outside the <ol> tag it should be able to affect all the <li> without any problems. I believe their tag resides within the <ol> however, which makes it invalid. Speaking of invalid, Google can't write markup. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebaccelerator.google.com%2Fsupport.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&ss=1&sp=1&No200=1&verbose=1
Comment 7•19 years ago
|
||
I'm seeing this on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050505 Firefox/1.0+ on the following sites: http://desktop.google.com/gettingstarted.html?hl=en http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-1999/jw-07-javacard.html The Google site starts at 1, but then gives up and goes back to 0. The Sun site is 0 from the start.
Comment 8•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 9•19 years ago
|
||
Blake, I would say that if the parser is strict about this, at least the numbers would be correct. IMHO, having correct semantic numbering is more important than FONT sizing/face. That said, you may want to consult other layout peers about this, as you know as well as I do, that I am far from the guy to make the call.
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
This patch makes <font> not contain <li>. This allows the list numbering to be correct, however, we don't style the numbers as "expected". This is as close to a fix as the parser can come to (without fixing things on the layout end). dbaron, what do you think?
Attachment #182922 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #182922 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
This is a regression somewhere in layout. The parser builds the same content model for the testcase in both Firefox 1.0 and in current trunk builds. This needs a narrower regression window.
Keywords: regression
Whiteboard: Regression?
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
Regression Window (Mozilla Suite Nightly Builds on Windows XP): 2005-04-01-05 Pass 2005-04-02-05 Fail http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=MozillaTinderboxAll&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2005-04-01+05&maxdate=2005-04-02-05&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot I suspect the checkin for Mozilla Bug 3247
Updated•19 years ago
|
Summary: Ordered lists (<ol> tags) are broken, display all 0s → Ordered lists (<ol> tags) inside <font> display all 0s
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 182922 [details] [diff] [review] parser workaround This isn't the right thing to do.
Attachment #182922 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #182922 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•19 years ago
|
||
We're looking at the wrong content node when we hit the <font>'s blockframe as we're recursively renumbering...
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: parser → nobody
Component: HTML: Parser → Layout
OS: Windows XP → All
QA Contact: mrbkap → layout
Hardware: PC → All
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → bzbarsky
Priority: -- → P2
Summary: Ordered lists (<ol> tags) inside <font> display all 0s → [FIX]Ordered lists (<ol> tags) inside <font> display all 0s
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.8beta2
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #183742 -
Flags: approval1.8b2+
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•19 years ago
|
||
Fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•