silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 9 00:36:40 PST 2011
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).
>>> recently come up for CSS flexboxes, e.g. if you set flex-order or a
>>> flow, then the tabindex still being in document order is often not what
>>> author wants (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62664).
>>> <button tabindex=0>A</button>
>>> <div tabindex=2 tabindexscope>
>>> <button tabindex=2>C</button>
>>> <button tabindex=1>B</button>
>>> <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:
Does that mean you are supportive of this proposal?
More information about the whatwg