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

[whatwg] tabindexscope

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:36:40 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mDgRSK6Q+U_BnQbK9dOo4QEMDktRjkUHoYEOLxrT-NWg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote:
> 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

Does that mean you are supportive of this proposal?

Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 00:36:40 UTC

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