1117552 - positive tabindex elements within ShadowDOM are improperly sorted into document's tabbing sequence

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)

Description

[Rodney Rehm]

Attachment: gecko-shadow-dom-positive-tabindex.html

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/34.0
Build ID: 20141125180439

Steps to reproduce:

1. created a ShadowDOM structure (see attached test case)
2. add input elements with [tabindex=1] and [tabindex=0] to the document
3. add input elements with [tabindex=1] and [tabindex=0] to the ShadowRoot
4. hit <kbd>Tab</kbd> to see the tabbing sequence

Live test case: http://medialize.github.io/ally.js/tests/browser-bugs/gecko-shadow-dom-positive-tabindex.html



Actual results:

The tabbing sequence showed that a shadowed element (i.e. an element within a ShadowRoot) with [tabindex=1] is tabbed to after the document's element with [tabindex=1] and before the document's element with [tabindex=0].

Also reproducible in Firefox Nightly 37.0a1 (2015-01-04).


Expected results:

the tabbing sequence should've been document[tabindex=1], document[tabindex=0], shadowed[tabindex=1], shadowed[tabindex=0]

http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#focus-navigation does not specify [tabindex=1] to be handled globally, rather considers the entire navigation order of the ShadowRoot to be a sub-sequence (as is) of the document's tabbing sequence.

Comment 1

[Andrew Overholt [:overholt]]

FWIW, William told me this is a spec issue.

Comment 2

[William Chen [:wchen]]

The current behavior in the spec doesn't handle distributed content. There is currently an open bug for that issue (https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/103) but it looks like latest resolution is that there really isn't a clear solution and it has been marked for shadow DOM v2 so I guess we'll implement the current behavior for now.

Comment 3

[Firefox Bug Husbandry Bot]

2019-03-06

This bug is part of a group of bugs which have had an open needinfo for at least 12 weeks.

The request for information has not been answered, and we can't move forward on the bug so we are closing it.

If the defect is still present, please reopen this bug with an updated report.