- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:13:48 +0100
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