W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2005

Re: ::can-have-focus pseudo-class?

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:24:37 -0800
Message-ID: <004f01c5dfd2$4d081a30$3201a8c0@Terra>
To: "Orion Adrian" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>

Hi, Orion,

> :can-have-focus seems more semantic than :tab-stop

Oh, that semantic.... Something tells me that
your phrase "more semantic" from semantic point of view just
degrade semantical meaning of the semantic as an entitiy :)

To be short: what do you mean exactly?

Technically speaking:

can-have-focus - means: can have a focus but may not *now* accept it.
tab-stop - means: this element *now* is 1) "focusable" and 2) 
"tab-stopable".

I cannot imagine situations when you need to designate *all*
focusable elements.

Example:
 buttons on the toolbar, they have focus (to be precise toolbar by itself
 can have a focus ) when you will click on it.
 But toolbar is out of tab order.

What do you want from ":can-have-focus" to select?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Orion Adrian" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: ::can-have-focus pseudo-class?


>
> :can-have-focus seems more semantic than :tab-stop
>
> On 11/2/05, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am using in my engine
>>
>> :tab-stop pseudo class for that.
>>
>> It is not exactly can-have-focus but very close.
>>
>> :tab-stop means it will accept focus *and* can be reached
>> by TAB traversal.  Strictly speaking "focusable"
>> element is not always "tab-reachable".
>>
>> Andrew Fedoniouk.
>> http://terrainformatica.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Martijn" <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
>> To: <www-style@w3.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: ::can-have-focus pseudo-class?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On 11/2/05, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, because here you have the potential for an actual loop.
>> > You're right, I can see the potential for a loop now (and not for the
>> > previous case).
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Martijn
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Orion Adrian
>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 17:24:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:41 GMT