Fix nested <ul> in footnotes
#2260
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 981d468 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
langermank
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2022
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What are you trying to accomplish?
This fixes https://github.com/github/issues/issues/2552 where a nested
<ul>in a footnote would look broken.What approach did you choose and why?
Using
inline-blockfor the nested<ul>makes sure the ↩︎ stays on the same line. Also fixed a bit the padding/margin.What should reviewers focus on
An alternative would be to not allow using
-(unordered list) in footnotes since footnotes are already ordered lists. But we don't really have control over the user generated markdown and omitting/removing the-(unordered list) in footnotes might also be considered as a bug? 🤔Can these changes ship as is?