W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2011

[whatwg] tabindexscope

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:13:48 +0100
Message-ID: <op.v4n3pahzidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:59:43 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:07:04 +0100, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> We keep running into the use case where the physical position matters  
>> for
>> the tab order. The problem with just setting tabIndex (or CSS3  
>> tab-index)
>> is that it takes the thing out of the natural order.
>>
>> This problem comes up in a lot of places (e.g. absolute positioning).  
>> It's
>> recently come up for CSS flexboxes, e.g. if you set flex-order or a  
>> reverse
>> flow, then the tabindex still being in document order is often not what  
>> the
>> author wants (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62664).
>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-August/007228.html  
> :-)
>
>> <button tabindex=0>A</button>
>> <div tabindex=2 tabindexscope>
>> <button tabindex=2>C</button>
>> <button tabindex=1>B</button>
>> </div>
>> <button tabindex=1>D</button>
>>
>> The order for the tabbing would be A-D-B-C.
>
> In legacy UAs the div would also be in the tab order. Maybe it's better  
> to drop tabindex=2 and use tabindexscope=2 instead (default to 0 if  
> omitted).

...which was also proposed in 2006:  
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-August/007236.html

>> Ojan
>
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 23:13:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:09 UTC