r56233 MediaWiki - Code Review archive

Repository:MediaWiki
Revision:r56232‎ | r56233 | r56234 >
Date:17:11, 12 September 2009
Author:rotem
Status:ok (Comments)
Tags:todo 
Comment:
Re-add the RTL lists workaround for Firefox bug to monobook/rtl.css, as common_rtl.css does not seem to be used in Monobook.
Modified paths:
  • /trunk/phase3/skins/common/common_rtl.css (modified) (history)
  • /trunk/phase3/skins/monobook/rtl.css (modified) (history)

Diff [purge]

Index: trunk/phase3/skins/monobook/rtl.css
@@ -237,3 +237,15 @@
238238 text-align: left;
239239 }
240240
 241+/**
 242+ * Lists:
 243+ * The following lines don't have a visible effect on non-Gecko browsers
 244+ * They fix a problem ith Gecko browsers rendering lists to the right of
 245+ * left-floated objects in an RTL layout.
 246+ */
 247+html > body div#article ul {
 248+ display: table;
 249+}
 250+html > body div#bodyContent ul#filetoc {
 251+ display: block;
 252+}
Index: trunk/phase3/skins/common/common_rtl.css
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
22 /*
33 * This file contains CSS settings common to RTL wikis use the old
44 * pre-Monobook skins Wikistandard, Nostalgia and CologneBlue
 5+ * NOTE: This file is not used in Monobook!
56 */
67
78 /* js pref toc */
@@ -47,19 +48,12 @@
4849 html > body div#article ul {
4950 display: table;
5051 }
 52+html > body div#bodyContent ul#filetoc {
 53+ display: block;
 54+}
5155
5256 /* feed links */
5357 a.feedlink {
5458 background: none !important;
5559 padding-left: 0 !important;
5660 }
57 -
58 -/**
59 - * Lists:
60 - * The following lines don't have a visible effect on non-Gecko browsers
61 - * They fix a problem ith Gecko browsers rendering lists to the right of
62 - * left-floated objects in an RTL layout.
63 - */
64 -html > body div#bodyContent ul#filetoc {
65 - display: block;
66 -}

Comments

#Comment by Simetrical (talk | contribs)   22:21, 18 September 2009

Does this occur in all versions of Firefox? Would it be better moved to a Firefox hacks file with an .rtl selector to ensure we only hit RTL? Is there a bug filed about this with Mozilla? This kind of CSS hack is fairly evil . . . who knows what side effects it might have on browsers we shouldn't be touching? At least we can be fairly sure selector hacks won't hit any unintended browsers.

#Comment by Rotemliss (talk | contribs)   17:28, 19 September 2009

It was fixed in Firefox 3. However, many users still use Firefox 2 which has this problem. Since this hack does not seem to cause unwanted side-effects in Firefox, I think that it is indeed better to move it to a Firefox hacks file (if exists).

#Comment by Brion VIBBER (talk | contribs)   18:28, 30 September 2009

Per check w/ Trevor this is ok for now, though we might want to check about doing it in proper common CSS if it's nec still.

Status & tagging log