- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:38:59 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 2012-10-18 10:24 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I agree, actually. However, then we should modify more of the > property. We can't make it "positive numbers", because that's an open > range, and we avoid those when possible. There's a legitimate reason, > for this property, to keep a "non-negative" restriction, though - > ideally, you shouldn't have to scan the entire document to find out > what the first element in tab order is, at least in the common case. > So, having a minimum value (either 0 or 1) that's the default makes it > possible to just jump to the first element with that value. It's > unfortunate that this means you can't put an element in front without > moving *all* the other elements, but that's a tradeoff. I'm not convinced by that argument. Tabbing order requires being able to go both forwards and backwards, and going backwards requires finding the last item quickly. I'd rather just allow negative values. (I think the more important thing we need to address with nav-index is adding the ability to establish scopes (rather than requiring all the indices to be global), though.) -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 01:39:23 UTC