Nested <DL> isn't indented in HTML 4.01/Strict.
According to http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#h-10.3.1: "Visual user agents generally indent nested lists with respect to the current level of nesting." I guess this means that it is not a must. Therefore confirming this bug but setting severity to minor.
According to http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#h-10.3: # <!ELEMENT DL - - (DT|DD)+ -- definition list --> # <!ATTLIST DL # %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events -- # > Thus, nesting a DL *directly* within a DL is INVALID. What you should do is: <dl> <dt> term you want to define </dt> <dd> <dl> <dt> sub term </dt> <dd> sub definition </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
DL within DD isn't indented too.
RICK!!!! <dd> is no longer accepting <dl> children!!! This is a *serious* backwards compatability issue that regressed VERY VERY recently. Nested <dl> within <dd>s are VERY common on the web. KOIKE: good catch. Thank you.
*** Bug 50099 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The current behaviour is not present in M17, but was introduced before 9/22.
Maybe bug 47827: "Stair-stepped" display of stories on page from Left to right. is relevant, see Harish's checkin on Sep 1 11:17 to nsElementTable.cpp (3.101) ("Make sure to check DD's hierarchy"): http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla/htmlparser/src/nsElementTable.cpp
Harish, is it true that your content model dump in bug 47827 already shows this problem?
Erich, nearly nothing is a must in HTML4. Severity back to normal.
(Increasing severity to major; parsing the document per the DTD _is_ a "must".)
From the code, this doesn't appear to be a recent regression. Nonetheless, the fix is in hand. I'm testing the top 100 now, and I'll attach a 1 line patch to the elementtable shortly.
I've attached the patch. I'll go get reviewers now. I don't expect PDT to approve this one either.
*** Bug 57478 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
rtm-, but let's get this on the trunk.
high profile backwards compatability;
selmer, I also disagree. Nesting is significant and often required for understanding. Not nesting dls is data loss. It is also a severe, highly visible standards compliance problem. 1-line fix. Please give [rtm+].
Turns out this has been regressed for a while now, so it clearly is not as obvious as I originally believed. As such, removing my rtm nomination. This is clearly not "zarro reesk"; there is so much broken code out there that changes to the element table sometimes (*sometimes*, maybe not this time, but how can we tell) cause some strange regressions elsewhere. RELEASE NOTE ITEM: In this release Mozilla does not support nesting of <dl> elements inside <dd> elements. Workaround: nest the inner <dl> element inside a <div> element, as in: <dl> <dt> term </dt> <dd> <div> <dl> <dt> nested term </dt> <dd> </dd> </dl> </div> </dd> </dl> Rick, can we get r=, sr=, moa= and then check this in to the trunk? Thanks!
You might not think, this is important, but I use nested <dl> *a lot* (even in email!). I keep my statement that this is a very visible standards-complicance bug. The only reason we didn't see this yet is that nobody (no webpages) yet uses the strict mode. The whole point of Gecko was the strict mode (standards complicance), so expect the visibility to increase dramatically. *I* will add rtm nomination then.
> I use nested <dl> *a lot* (even in email!) ops, sorry, I confused this with <ul>. Nevertheless, it is *still* a highly visible compliance bug (<dl>s are sometimes used for indention, and nested indentions are both common and significant).
Ben, as Ian stated, fixing this bug is not a "Zaaro Reesk". It's not worthit to risk rtm for this bug!!!
putting rtm- back in whiteboard. Doesn't seem like status of this bug has changed since the original minus. Leaving the whiteboard blank is incorrect for this bug. The only valid state from here is to leave it as [rtm-] or to move it to [rtm+] with some compelling argument why this should be accepted. A compelling argument might look something like "80% of the top100 use this construct" - if it could be substantiated.
Why don't we fix this now? If we don't do it, we'll probably never do it. Or is it already fixed?
This (much maligned) issue is now resolved. The DL containment rule has been corrected.
The problem I reported isn't fixed. See my testcase(2000-10-23). I know HTML specification doesn't require indentation, but the current rendering is not natural.
I can confirm this funky behavior as well, on Win 98 Build 01-18-21.
The original bug as seen in http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=17763 ...is invalid -- that is a <dl> inside a <dl>, which is invalid markup. You should wrap the inner <dl> in a <dd>, as per the spec. This is either INVALID (the original issue of directly nested DLs) or FIXED (the valid issue of DL in a DT). Or instead of INVALID it could go to evang... (Trimming keywords to match the compat issue.)
OK, my testcase was invalid. Indentation works fine if I remove extra <DD> in it.
Marking VERIFIED Per reporter's comments (and my own, since the other case seemed to work OK).