Skip to content

fix: Ensure proper closing of li element in plugin-editor.php #8937

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: trunk
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix: Ensure proper closing of li element in plugin-editor.php #8937

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions src/wp-admin/plugin-editor.php
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -288,6 +288,7 @@
<ul role="group">
<?php wp_print_plugin_file_tree( wp_make_plugin_file_tree( $plugin_editable_files ) ); ?>
</ul>
</li>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While it makes sense to add this, it won't actually impact the structure of parsed HTML in the DOM. The parsing rules of HTML allow for implicitly-closed LI tags.

Compare the parsed DOM trees:

The only difference is an extra whitespace #text node.

See MDN reference:

Tag omission: The end tag can be omitted if the list item is immediately followed by another <li> element, or if there is no more content in its parent element.

Copy link
Contributor

@joedolson joedolson Jun 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Also has no real world accessibility consequences, and doesn't violate WCAG as of version 2.2, when the relevant criteria was removed.

However, while no reputable accessibility company would consider it an issue, it is technically required under laws stipulating conformance with WCAG 2.0 or 2.1.

Still worth fixing. We just need to recognize that it's minor.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noted. Thank you, @westonruter & @joedolson, for your feedback.

</ul>
</div>

Expand Down
Loading