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