On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:59:43 +0100, Simon Pieters <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:07:04 +0100, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> 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
Ojan
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
