Closed Bug 1639790 Opened 4 years ago Closed 4 years ago

problems with ordered list in firefox

Categories

(Thunderbird :: Untriaged, defect)

defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1548753

People

(Reporter: pnewell0705, Unassigned)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0

Steps to reproduce:

I create an email of nested order lists which looks like (in pseudo code):
+++
"start ordered list"
item 1
item 2
item 3
item 3.1
item 4
item 5
"end ordered list"

The ordered list is displayed incorrectly and I have to remove all </li> tags to get proper display.

Rather than attaching the files, I cut-and-pasted what tBird gives me and what I had to do to correct as the "what happened" and "what should have happened"

This is a bug that is not just in writing an html. The tBird draft email shows the same problem

I checked on the Mozilla site for MDN Web Docs (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ol) and can see, under "Usage Notes", the following which indicates Mozilla standards say I should be able to have nested ordered lists:

"The <ol> and <ul> elements may nest as deeply as desired, alternating between <ol> and <ul> however you like."

I am running tBird 68.8.0 (64-bit) on a Centos 7.8 machine and am up-to-date as far as yum is concerned.

I hope I have provided the necessary info. If you need something else, please let me know

Actual results:

this is the file I write out to an *.html file:
++++
<html>
<head>

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>testOfBadNumericOrderedList__OL_tag</title>

</head>
<body>
v1.0 :: 20may20 -- test file to show the problem in ordered lists
created in tBird<br>
=====<br>
This is the ordered list:<br>
<ol>
<li>First line</li>
<li>Second line</li>
<li>Third line</li>
<ol>
<li>First sub-line of third line</li>
</ol>
<li>Fourth line</li>
<li>Fifth line</li>
</ol>
End of ordered list<br>
</body>
</html>
++++

Expected results:

this is what the file needs to be to display as intended:
+++++
<html>
<head>

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>testOfBadNumericOrderedList__OL_tag</title>

</head>
<body>
v1.0 :: 20may20 -- test file to show the problem in ordered lists
created in tBird<br>
=====<br>
This is the ordered list:<br>
<ol>
<li>First line
<li>Second line
<li>Third line
<ol>
<li>First sub-line of third line
</ol>
<li>Fourth line
<li>Fifth line
</ol>
End of ordered list<br>
</body>
</html>
+++++

Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE

I am seeing that bug 1548753 is fixed in Thunderbird 82 and, therefore, I assumed that it means it is fixed in this bug as Magnus has marked this issue as a dupe.

I am on 91.4.0 on Centos 7 and went back to my draft where I noticed the error. And the file "suddenly" looks right. This is a long draft that has been edited and massaged since February 2017. I wanted to note that before I let you know that I found one place in that draft where I am still seeing the error. I will be attaching an image of the error after I finish this entry.

My first question is whether there is something I need to do to "kick" the draft so it will be correct. The second question is do I have to assume that any drafts/emails started before tBird 82 might still have relicts that may not be corrected. If the answer to both is "no", then is this image something I need to try to isolate in something smaller to send in as an example to be looked at? I am not certain whether trying to create a workable extract will still show the issue.

Thanks for any help,
Paul

Attached image remainingIssue.png (deleted) —

this shows an <ol> inside an <ol> that, when the inner list is exited with </ol>, should be bullet #3 from the outer list but is #6 from the inner list

For a draft it's likely it had already stored incorrect markup so all bets are off. Please start a fresh draft.

Magnus:

Thanks for quick reply. I figured that this would probably be the answer but since it looked like every other error got fixed by running in 91.4 I wanted to check.

Best.
Paul

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: