- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:57:34 +1100
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Rik Cabanier: > There are some differences for tabIndex between > 1.https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/types.html#__svg__SVGElement__tabindex > and > 2: https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/interact.html#sequential- > focus-navigation-and-the-tabindex-attribute > > 1. There is a difference in casing. > 1 defines it as 'tabIndex' while 2 as 'tabindex'. I assume it should be the > former since that follows HTML (and Erik's patch) I think the spec is right: the content attribute is named tabindex="" and the IDL attribute is named tabIndex. Or did I miss a case where it’s wrong? > 2. There is a difference in allowed value > The idl in 1 says that the default is 0, while 2 states that tabindex is > undefined by default. Should we follow 2? (1) says that the default is 0 for elements that are “directly focusable”, and -1 otherwise. (2) says there is no lacuna value for the attribute. I think it would be better to define that as part of the lacuna value for the content attribute. Not sure we have text that says how to reflect invalid/missing content attributes when they have a lacuna value, but we should, and that’s where the default value of SVGElement.tabIndex should come from. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 02:58:10 UTC