Michael Richter <ttmrich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't get it. We never had to number the list ourselves. > > What was wrong with : > > > > Numbered list > > > > 0 Number one > > 0 Number two > > 0 Number three > > > > > It gives you a list that looks like: > > 0. Number one > 0. Number two > 0. Number three > > That's not really a numbered list, now, is it?
Actually, this is not the intended behavior of Fossil and it does not work everywhere. I see what's going on now. IE and Firefox (at least) treat a 0 as no value, thus they assign a value. What Fossil outputs from the above example is: <ol> <li value="0">Number One</li> <li value="0">Number Two</li> <li value="0">Number Three</li> </ol> Oh, also when trying to figure out how this was working, I see that the value attribute to li is depricated and will cause validation problems. So, for that fact alone, I think fossil should be changed. BTW... I uploaded an example, http://jeremy.cowgar.com/test.html ... You can view the source, same output as fossil's. I then used browsershots.org. You can view my page on browsershots.org in many different web browsers. http://browsershots.org/http://jeremy.cowgar.com/test.html ... The majority of the browsers output 0. 0. 0. It seems maybe IE is the only one that turns it into a true numbered list? Jeremy _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
