- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:36:40 +1100
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