@hans2103 Could you remove the icon/emoji from the title of this PR? I remember that icons in PR titles have confused some of our tools in past. Thanks in advance.

Is there a reason that you only changed the instance in this view and not all views that are incorrectly using ordered lists?

For reference these lists were made into ordered lists by the accessibility team in 2012 https://developer.joomla.org/joomlacode-archive/issue-29827.html

@brianteeman no need for finger pointing. @brianteeman did not find the issue, but the accessibility team did.

it is NOT finger pointing - why always looking at the bad :) :-x

I was simply pointing it out that the code is an ordered list because the accessibility team in the past changed it to an ordered list so presumably they had a reason for doing so and as @angieradtke is still around from that time it might be a good idea to find out why before reverting their changes.

Is there a reason that you only changed the instance in this view and not all views that are incorrectly using ordered lists?

Then others would be changed too in other pr I guess. I just didn't look further.

For reference these lists were made into ordered lists by the accessibility team in 2012 https://developer.joomla.org/joomlacode-archive/issue-29827.html

Thank you for finding out when these lists where changed into ordered lists.

Apart from what the team thought was right in the past I think we have to change it now. The list is no sequential information but a list of items where the order is not relevant.
Therefor an unordered list should be used.

Do you agree with that argument?
If yes... can this pr be tested and merged?

And if merged, I will create another pr to apply the same change to other ordered lists.

In addition to the previous.

An unordered list makes here the most sense and is therefore preferred, because:

• Unordered lists are used when the order of the items is not relevant. List items in unordered lists are marked with a bullet.
• Ordered lists are used for sequential information and are automatically enumerated by the browser.

source: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/page-structure/content/

In addition to the previous.

An unordered list makes here the most sense and is therefore preferred, because:

• Unordered lists are used when the order of the items is not relevant. List items in unordered lists are marked with a bullet.
• Ordered lists are used for sequential information and are automatically enumerated by the browser.

source: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/page-structure/content/

why makes an unordered list more sense then an ordered? isn't the order the most important thing on a pagination?

As unordered list I would expect a grocery store list but not the index of book which the pagination actually is.

An ordered list indicates that the user has to follow steps in the given order. Like a cooking receipe.
In the pagination the user can choose a pagenumber as he wants. fist page 10, then page 2, or the 20th link first. (It is a grocery store ...)

why makes an unordered list more sense then an ordered? isn't the order the most important thing on a pagination?

An ordered list indicates that the user has to follow steps in the given order. Like a cooking receipe.

Now I'm starting to doubt, because these arguments are very convincing.

So went to look at the code from Bootstrap, that uses Joomla.
See code Bootstrap v5.2. They use ul for the pagination: (probably the most basic?)

<nav aria-label="Page navigation example">
  <ul class="pagination">
    <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="#">Previous</a></li>
    <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="#">1</a></li>
    <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="#">2</a></li>
    <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="#">3</a></li>
    <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="#">Next</a></li>
  </ul>
</nav>

Source: https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.2/components/pagination/

The two questions I'm asking now is why ul and why would Joomla differ from Bootstrap?

This PR does not change the HTML used for pagination.
This PR only changes the HTML for the list above pagination.
See screenshot... the list with a single item with title "Welcome to our blog".

The pagination is not in this scope.

@HLeithner I think you misunderstood the PR, like I did at the first time. The relevant thing is not the pagination, it is the small link shown above it. Hard to see in the screenshots.

The pagination is not in this scope.

Good of you to mention this.

This PR does not change the HTML used for pagination. This PR only changes the HTML for the list above pagination. See screenshot... the list with a single item with title "Welcome to our blog".

The pagination is not in this scope.

^^ ok sorry that make sense of course

I like it that we're on the same track now. Please use the same energy as used in discussing this issue for testing this issue. ;-)

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 8157e31

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 8157e31

RTC

Thank you Hans @hans2103 for the PR!

Should this really have been merged in a patch release.

I understand it is being treated as a bug but unlike most bug fixes this changes the visual output of the site which is a breaking change that a user would not expect in a patch release.

Thanks Brian @brianteeman, I understand the concern. I merged this as it has a really low impact and did not deserve to be ignored for another 5 months. The visual will change, but was not right in the first place. That's why I made this decision.

Thanks for the response @obuisard #While I appreciate the explanation I will stick with my view that it is wrong in this specific case. It's been wrong for 12 years without comment, until now, so its hardly urgent and there is a remedy available to all users right now (a template override). There are a huge number of other pull requests that user's have reported that are now waiting for 5+ months for a fix and I just dont see what makes this one special.

Hans @hans2103, I will reverse this PR for now, this fix could still impact sites that rely on the <ol> being used.

@obuisard Should this be done in 5.0? Or even 6.0?

Agree with reverse of this PR. It is a bug but not as urgent. It would be nice to have the fix in 5.0 if possible, together with a fix for all occurencies.

retried it on branch = 5.0-dev with PR = #40633