-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for CSS reading-flow #10613
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
</ul> | ||
|
||
<p>A <dfn data-x="reading-flow-item">reading flow item</dfn> is an element whose <span>parent | ||
element</span> is a <span>reading flow scope owner</span>.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By these definitions, "reading flow item" and "reading flow scope owner" are not mutually exclusive. A reading flow item can be a reading flow scope owner, because a reading flow item itself could satisfy the second condition of being a scope owner (i.e., its parent is a reading flow container). I just want to check: is that OK? Or is it the intention that nodes are either scope owners OR items, but not both?
Let me know if that makes sense... it's possible I've just managed to confuse myself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that is the right read. We kinda discussed it here #10533 as the only case that might happen AFAIK is for display: contents
.
We opted with option 2 because option 1 of not making display: contents
focus scope owners causes many checks in the accessibility tree to fail (the relation between parent and direct child should not be changed).
determined by the scope owner's computed value of the <span>'reading-flow'</span> property: | ||
|
||
<ul> | ||
<li><p>For <span>'flex-visual'</span>: the reading flow should be defined by sorting the <span |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should these really all be non-normative "should"s? Tab index order seems to be really wish-washy and hand-wavy, but I'm not sure if it is our intention to provide the same wiggle room for reading flow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changed all "the reading flow should be defined by" to "follows the order defined by".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great, I think we can resolve this specific thread then right? (Just making sure you didn't leave it open for a particular reason).
data-x="participating-reading-flow-item">participating reading flow items</span> in the visual | ||
reading flow order and taking the <span>writing mode</span> into account, followed by <span | ||
data-x="non-participating-reading-flow-item">non participating reading flow | ||
items</span>.</p></li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Followed by non-participating reading flow items in what order? I'm assuming "DOM order", like the implementation, right? https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/page/focus_controller.cc;l=193;drc=ce5e49ca631411f56fb12a6e58cb578ea31daba2.
In that case, I would probably reference <span>tree order</span>
alongside this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, in DOM order. Added.
By the way, in the OP you have "At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):" checked, but neither of the two linked standards positions have been resolved yet, so I'd uncheck that unless you you have other cross-browser support to point to. |
Thanks for the first pass!
Thanks for the call out. There has been conversation in meetings and implementers from non-chromium browsers are interested and none opposed. But I will wait for their comments on the official position issues before checking the checkbox. |
The CSSWG resolved to add the new CSS property reading-flow: (w3c/csswg-drafts#7387, spec). Chrome has been working on a prototype for how to change the sequential focus navigation order within a container that has reading-flow.
This PR specs the new CSS property reading-flow per proposal described at #10407.
(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)
/index.html ( diff )
/infrastructure.html ( diff )
/interaction.html ( diff )
/rendering.html ( diff )