Last modified: 2012-12-08 22:34:02 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 2575 - Add wiki markup for alphabetical ordered lists
Add wiki markup for alphabetical ordered lists
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Parser (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: newparser
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-06-28 15:45 UTC by Slade
Modified: 2012-12-08 22:34 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Slade 2005-06-28 15:45:43 UTC
It would be nice to have the option to create a list ordered by letters, much
like the lists that are created by the # ## format, but instead have it use
letters. For example, a numbered list with an ordered letter list indented
beneath it:

#       1.
#x            a.
#x            b.
#x#                  1.
#       2.
#x            a.
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-06-04 02:57:40 UTC
Your proposed syntax would be messed up if someone started a numbered-list line
with an "x".  I don't see why @ can't be used, though, if you really want more
wikimarkup.  (This is doable by HTML, of course.  <ol
type="a"><li>a<li>b<li>c...</ol>  Also allows uppercase letters, and lowercase
and uppercase Roman numerals.)
Comment 2 Danny B. 2007-06-24 11:15:17 UTC
Changed summary to more descriptive.

I support the proposal in comment #1 for "@" char as a markup for abc ordered lists.

@ lorem          a. lorem 
@ ipsum          b. ipsum

# lorem          1. lorem
#@ ipsum           a. ipsum
#@# dolor            1. dolor
#@#@ sit               a. sit
Comment 3 Brion Vibber 2007-06-25 15:14:55 UTC
I don't see a huge requirement for adding yet more markup for relatively rare variants. Recommend WONTFIX.
Comment 4 Danny B. 2007-09-02 03:01:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't see a huge requirement for adding yet more markup for relatively rare
> variants. Recommend WONTFIX.

I can't agree with "relatively rare". Laws, bylaws, notices and other stuff like that usually use alphabetical ordered lists. And Wikisources contain this kind of and similar stuff. Wikibooks can contain abc lists if article/book creator decides to order items this way.

If the abc is in first level, it's pretty easily workaroundable by

<div class="abcordered">
# foo
## bar
# baz
</div>

but if you need to have lower levels abc ordered you must write the entire list in html. (Well yes, you could have x classes to set different levels, but it depends on admins, so users can't create such level in abc if it's not supported in global styles.)
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2010-05-04 13:33:25 UTC
We're very unlikely to add more wikimarkup like this, so closing WONTFIX as Brion recommended.
Comment 6 Danny B. 2010-05-05 20:17:18 UTC
Are we closing bugs just because of lowering down the number of opened ones to say how successful we are in solving of bugs?

Three years old comment, even if Brion's with all the respect, can't be considered valid, or at least actual now, in the situation, when there was some growth of the software as well as of the team of people working on it.

I provided reasonable examples of why and when such markup would be useful.

One of the topics on developer's conference was "rewriting the parser". Apparently good opportunity for adding the requested feature.

Therefore reopening.
Comment 7 Platonides 2010-05-05 20:22:07 UTC
We should support
<ol>
# lorem
# ipsum
# dolor
</ol>

Having that in, your alphabetically ordered lists would be done with <ol
type="a">
Comment 8 Brion Vibber 2010-05-05 20:27:23 UTC
As a reminder, no new markup is required -- this already works in a wiki page:

<ol type="a">
<li> lorem
<li> ipsum
<li> dolor
</ol>

Especially given we're in a long-term move from low-level markup to structured text and richer editing, I still don't think there's any benefit from trying to think up and implement a second syntax for it.
Comment 9 Danny B. 2010-05-05 20:30:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> We should support
> <ol>
> # lorem
> # ipsum
> # dolor
> </ol>
> 
> Having that in, your alphabetically ordered lists would be done with <ol
> type="a">


Well, I already saw the following weird construction mixing HTML and wikimarkup for ordered lists:

# <li value="20"> 20th item
# 21st item
# 22nd item

I don't know if it's working on purpose or by mistake, however such mixing of code won't help newbies to understand and rather will discourage them from editing.
Comment 10 Platonides 2010-05-05 22:07:54 UTC
By mistake. Note that without tidy you get:

   1.
  20. 20th item
  21. 21st item
  22. 22nd item 


Would creating @ lists be easier?
We need a way to provide parameters to lists (start & type), which can be done in wiki syntax.
Having to to type <ol start=n> and use <li> instead of # is harder than only adding <ol start=n> (specially if you are changing an existing # list!).

Plus, it is consistent with the underlying HTML. There's a # per each <li>, and you may manually provide an specific <ol> before.
Comment 11 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2010-05-06 02:02:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> Are we closing bugs just because of lowering down the number of opened ones to
> say how successful we are in solving of bugs?

No, we're closing bugs as WONTFIX if we will refuse to accept patches for them because we believe they're a bad idea.  That's what WONTFIX means.

> Three years old comment, even if Brion's with all the respect, can't be
> considered valid, or at least actual now, in the situation, when there was some
> growth of the software as well as of the team of people working on it.

Brion's comment is still valid and I agree with it.  We should not be adding more special-case wikimarkup to make parsing even harder.  Where possible, we should be *removing* magic wikisyntax behavior (like RFC parsing, say).  Wikisyntax is too complicated as-is.  If you want anything other than the most super-basic effects, you can use HTML.

> I provided reasonable examples of why and when such markup would be useful.

You can use HTML just fine in all cases.

> One of the topics on developer's conference was "rewriting the parser".
> Apparently good opportunity for adding the requested feature.

That's an orthogonal issue.  It could be added just as easily now as in a rewrite.  We shouldn't add it either way, because it's a bad idea to further complicate wikisyntax for marginal use-cases like this.

(In reply to comment #7)
> We should support
> <ol>
> # lorem
> # ipsum
> # dolor
> </ol>
> 
> Having that in, your alphabetically ordered lists would be done with <ol
> type="a">

This is still syntactic complication for no very good reason.  Why not just use <li> instead of # here, once you explicitly use the <ol> and </ol>?  It's not nearly as bad as trying to appropriate an unused character like @, though.
Comment 12 Platonides 2010-05-06 16:57:54 UTC
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > We should support
> > <ol>
> > # lorem
> > # ipsum
> > # dolor
> > </ol>
> > 
> > Having that in, your alphabetically ordered lists would be done with <ol
> > type="a">
> 
> This is still syntactic complication for no very good reason.

I mean a <ol> tag followed by #s (so it can get parameters). Not to force <ol> before #! A # not preceded by an <ol> would continue opening the <ol> by itself.
Comment 13 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2010-05-06 17:22:15 UTC
I know, but you're complicating wikisyntax by making that markup behave differently.  It's an extra special case in the parser.  That makes reimplementation in another parser harder, makes the parser slower, etc.  Once users are already using <ol>, they may as well use <li> too instead of # -- it's not a big usability improvement IMO, so not worth it.
Comment 14 Jeffery Nichols 2012-08-11 19:44:03 UTC
I work on internal wikis for governments and the legal profession. They very often want nested ordered lists with numbers in the top level, lower-case letters in the second level, and lower-case roman numerals in the third level. I know that this can be done using HTML or some extensions, but teaching everyone in a large organization how to use new tags is very difficult, and seeing something like <ol type="a"> does scare away less computer-literate editors. I would love it if you could add wiki markup for lower-alpha and lower-roman ordered lists. Alternatively, it would be nice if was possible to change something in the CSS to make nested ordered lists follow the number->letter->roman pattern. As a third option, it would be nice if you could add a lower-alpha option to the visual editor so the HTML would be hidden.
Comment 15 Platonides 2012-08-12 14:07:10 UTC
Jeffery, you can configure the wiki for that with wiki-wide CSS.
Comment 16 Antoine "hashar" Musso (WMF) 2012-12-08 22:28:18 UTC
Moving this under Parser component.
Comment 17 Gabriel Wicke 2012-12-08 22:34:02 UTC
Closing as WONTFIX for the reasons described by Brion and Aryeh above. We are moving towards HTML5/RDFa with Parsoid and the Visual Editor, the HTML syntax is available already and site-wide CSS can be employed if that is too cumbersome.

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


Navigation
Links