W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2014

Re: [whatwg] Maximum value needed for tabindex

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:19:18 +0200
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Message-ID: <op.xjiwagk5y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:10:55 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>  

> 2014-07-24 8:34, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 7/24/14, 1:29 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>>> 1) Keep tabindex unlimited and try to make browsers implement this.
>> This is what we should do, in my totally biased opinion.
> Even in the best case, it would take several years before the usage  
> share of all current browser versions is small enough.

Yes. Trying to promote a 'best practice' not to use big numbers because  
they don't work will also take time, and people will go on repeating it  
long after it isn't true anymore - while others will say it's old hat long  
before that becomes the case.

So the question is which is the path of least harm.

> Are there any use cases for tabindex values greater than 32767?  
> Presumably not real use now (since such values do not work), but are  
> there reasonably imaginable use cases?

I find it hard to come up with one. Having 327 marked active items in a  
page and using tabindex in increments of 100 is already a pretty bad  
situation, at the level where you should probably be dynamically  
controlling the things with tabindex. Which in turn means you can use  
smaller increments, and dynamically manage them.

Having 32k items in a page doesn't seem like the real-world problem would  
be numbering the tabindex, but the fact that there are 32k active things  
you're trying to manage in a single ordered list…


Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 22:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:21 UTC