- From: Hugo via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:23:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> So, do you think those two sentences would be changed like below? : >> Let focusables be the set of all the focusable areas whose DOM anchor are visually inside the border boundary of C. Sounds OK if you remove the _visibleOnly_ argument (it will have no effect?) and stop saying "DOM anchor" (use "boundary box" instead). The DOM anchor of an [`<area>` is its `<img>`](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#dom-anchor). An `<area>`'s `<img>` can be [partly] visible while the `<area>` itself isn't.. >and >>Let **insiders** be the subset of candidates items whose DOM anchor are visually inside the border boundary of C. To avoid confusion around image maps, and to emphasize that we only really care about boundary boxes, I'd instead write something like: _Let **insiders** be the set of focusable areas whose boundary boxes [are completely inside searchOrigin](https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1605696/11/third_party/blink/renderer/core/page/spatial_navigation.cc#550)._ Note that we in Chrome don't handle **insiders** as a separate case. They are handled in the same code flow as any other focusable but [with a favored distance score](https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1605696/11/third_party/blink/renderer/core/page/spatial_navigation.cc#553). Also, note that we simply define **insiders** as ["candidates that are completely inside the current focus rect"](https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1605696/11/third_party/blink/renderer/core/page/spatial_navigation.cc#551). Perhaps you could copy Chrome here? -- GitHub Notification of comment by hugoholgersson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3965#issuecomment-498278428 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 3 June 2019 14:24:01 UTC