Opened 17 years ago
Last modified 9 years ago
#4848 new defect
Unable to return to previous indentation within wiki — at Version 4
Reported by: | Owned by: | Christian Boos | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | topic-wikiengine |
Component: | wiki system | Version: | 0.10.3 |
Severity: | major | Keywords: | wikisyntax list |
Cc: | Branch: | ||
Release Notes: | |||
API Changes: | |||
Internal Changes: |
Description (last modified by )
0. Item 1[[BR]] Some text regarding Item 1 * Item 1.a * Item 1.b Further text regarding Item 1 0. Item 2
is rendered as:
- Item 1
Some text regarding Item 1- Item 1.a
- Item 1.b
- Item 2
i.e. with Trac 0.11.4stable-r7988
<ol class="arabiczero"><li>Item 1<br /> Some text regarding Item 1 <ul><li>Item 1.a </li><li>Item 1.b </li></ul></li><li>Further text regarding Item 1 </li></ol><ol class="arabiczero"><li>Item 2 </li></ol>
"Further text regarding Item 1" should be rendered at the same indent level as "Some text regarding item 1", and without becoming a new list item itself (or causing Item 2 to be rendered as the first item in a new list).
Change History (4)
comment:1 by , 17 years ago
Keywords: | wikisyntax list added |
---|---|
Milestone: | → 0.11 |
comment:2 by , 17 years ago
Milestone: | 0.11 → 0.12 |
---|
WikiEngine refactoring and related fixes postponed.
follow-up: 4 comment:3 by , 15 years ago
Severity: | normal → major |
---|
Related issue:
0. Item 1[[BR]] Some text regarding Item 1 * Item 1.a * Item 1.b Further text regarding Item 1 0. Item 2
- Item 1
Some text regarding Item 1- Item 1.a
- Item 1.b
Further text regarding Item 1
- Item 2
comment:4 by , 15 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
i.e. the example from comment:3 produces the following HTML, with Trac 0.11.4stable-r7988:
<ol class="arabiczero"><li>Item 1<br /> Some text regarding Item 1 <ul><li>Item 1.a </li><li>Item 1.b </li></ul></li></ol><blockquote> <p> Further text regarding Item 1 </p> </blockquote> <ol class="arabiczero"><li>Item 2 </li></ol>
While the nesting looks a bit better, here we have a new blockquote, which is also wrong.
Good example, thanks.