web commit by http://madduck.myopenid.com/: add HTML snippet and slam suspision of...

[ikiwiki.git] / doc / bugs / Map_sorts_subtags_under_a_different_tag.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/bugs/Map_sorts_subtags_under_a_different_tag.mdwn b/doc/bugs/Map_sorts_subtags_under_a_different_tag.mdwn
index f7f99019bb2960083e6100ac34dec5abd6e29454..f7ff2dd3140f1ae2d59593d8b602dc08d1fb4139 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/bugs/Map_sorts_subtags_under_a_different_tag.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/Map_sorts_subtags_under_a_different_tag.mdwn
@@ -5,26 +5,43 @@ revert there any time, but I need to move on.
 
 I have a few tags starting with `a` (abridged list):
 
-> $ ls wiki/factors/tag/a*
-> [...]
-> wiki/factors/tag/active/:
-> index.html
->
-> wiki/factors/tag/affects/:
-> contributors/  developers/  users/
-> [...]
+    $ ls wiki/factors/tag/a*
+    [...]
+    wiki/factors/tag/active/:
+    index.html
+    
+    wiki/factors/tag/affects/:
+    contributors/  developers/  users/
+    [...]
 
 In `wiki-wc/factors/tag.mdwn`, I have a map for these tags:
 
-> [[map pages="factors/tag/*"]]
+    \[[map pages="factors/tag/*"]]
 
 and this works, except that for *whatever* reason, it actually sorts the three
 `affects/*` tags under `active`:
 
-> $ w3m -dump wiki/factors/tag/index.html | grep active -A3
->               ○ active
->                   ■ contributors
->                   ■ developers
->                   ■ users
+    $ w3m -dump wiki/factors/tag/index.html | grep active -A3
+                  ○ active
+                      ■ contributors
+                      ■ developers
+                      ■ users
+
+And this is actually in the HTML code:
+
+    <li><a href="active/">active</a>
+    <ul>
+    <li><a href="affects/contributors/">contributors</a>
+    </li>
+    <li><a href="affects/developers/">developers</a>
+    </li>
+    <li><a href="affects/users/">users</a>
+    </li></ul>
+    </li>
+    <li><a href="approach/">approach</a>
+    </li>
+
+So it's not that the `<ul>` has an empty parent `<li>`, the three tags are
+*really* children of `active`.
 
 This really blows my mind. :)