https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32888
athenurlau...@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #5 from athenurlau...@hotmail.com 2011-12-09 23:16:20 UTC ---
Ah - fixed? Please translate the technocracy. As far as I can see, nothing has
changed. Please (again) take a look here for a demonstartion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dan_Pelleg/Sandbox/Sortability_bug
As to your questions (ah - did you read my posts? Did you take a look at the
link I provided and at its source?):
1. The expected result is, that columns defined as sortable indeed always be
rendered as sortable, insead of losing their sortability if one of their
headers happens to contain an embedded table that happens to have more columns
than it's "mother".
2. Yes, the reason I found the bug was because a table I'd created suddenly
went awry without any edits having been made to it. If it's really necessary,
I'll explain why I created this kind of table. Is it really necessary?
Roundabout solutions can often be found, is this a reason to leave this silly
bug unattended to?.
You can take a look at the "real usage" site here (I've found a roundabout
solution for the time being - an additional layer of embedded tables, yuck):
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9_%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A9#.D7.93.D7.95.D7.92.D7.9E.D7.90.D7.95.D7.AA
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
