User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0 Build ID: 20130201065344 Steps to reproduce: Please add support for the dialog element, which makes it easier to develop stackable dialog boxes and pop-up UI components within an HTML document. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/commands.html#the-dialog-element http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/interactive-elements.html#the-dialog-element (Work to support <dialog> and its associated API within WebKit began in 2012, but is not yet complete.)
Sounds like something humph would be interested in :)
Component: Layout → DOM: Core & HTML
There is an implementation of this in the latest builds of Chrome Canary (32.0.1653.0) and a demo and polyfill here: http://demo.agektmr.com/dialog/
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: DOM: Core & HTML → Layout
Ever confirmed: true
Hi all. I've been working on implementing <dialog> in Chrome behind a flag and am thinking of exposing it by default soon. I'm curious about whether Mozilla folks feel positively about this feature and the current spec, or if anyone feels shipping is a bad idea? Spec: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/commands.html#the-dialog-element Demo: http://demo.agektmr.com/dialog/
Attachment #720266 - Attachment mime type: text/plain → text/html
Implementing the dialog element makes sense in my opinion because it is hard to polyfill correctly. Modal dialogs have to render all nodes but themselves (and descendants) inert. However, without implementing showModal, one cannot make nodes inert by script. Workarounds are to listen for focus changes and setting the focus back onto the dialog whenever it leaves and to prevent further events from happening outside the dialog by putting a backdrop between the dialog and the rest of the document. Finally, one usually adds aria-hidden="true" onto the non-dialog part of the document. This raises a number of problems, though: 1) There might be another way to access the document that is not fully inert than by just preventing mouse and keyboard events and controlling the focus. 2) The dialog element cannot be a descendant of anything that has to be made inaccessible (due to the way aria-hidden works). 3) Trapping the focus inside the dialog means that one cannot access the location bar with the tab key without closing the dialog first.
Chrome and Opera now have mostly complete support, including support for <form method="dialog">. They omit support for specifying an optional anchor point argument on .show() and .showModal(). There is MDN reference documentation at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/dialog and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLDialogElement.
This would be very useful to have for accessibility, too. It would mittigat e the need for web authors to create their own dialog widgets and have to use hacks like aria-hidden to hide everything *outside* the dialog widget from assistive technologies for people with disabilities. It is a real nuisance to deal with from both an evangelism and technical standpoint, and having the native html:dialog element implemented would hugely improve the lives of many many people.
With the planned removal of showModalDialog, this feature should get implemented rather than forcing applications to polyfill dialog functionality. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=981796 for more on the removal of showModalDialog.
Also, native dialogs would be even more useful on FirefoxOS
Seeing interest in this spike again recently, tracking this with DevAdvocacy.
Probably someone could take this and implement functions other than dialog.showModal(). To implement dialog.showModal() correctly, we need to convert our fullscreen stack into top layer stack, and handle both fullscreen and modal dialog there. To having the fully-implemented top layer stack, we may need to finish bug 1195213 first. And I don't think other parts of <dialog> should be blocked by that.
Leaving it here as reference.
Summary: Implement the HTML5 dialog element → [meta] Implement the HTML5 dialog element
I can't seem to find an "intent to implement" for this feature, did you send one?
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #15) > I can't seem to find an "intent to implement" for this feature, > did you send one? I've sent one on Monday, it's still awaiting approval unfortunately.
> I've sent one on Monday, it's still awaiting approval unfortunately. I still haven't seen it, so I suspect something might have gone wrong. Could you file a bug about that, or notify the people responsible somehow? Meanwhile, I can send it for you if you want.
(In reply to Mats Palmgren (:mats) from comment #17) > > I've sent one on Monday, it's still awaiting approval unfortunately. > > I still haven't seen it, so I suspect something might have gone wrong. > Could you file a bug about that, or notify the people responsible > somehow? Looks like non-member posts take forever to get moderated. I've joined the list and posted, and it worked: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/vTPGW1aJq24
Nice to see activity on the dependencies! Please ping MarcoZ (back next week) for accessibility reviews.
2 years ago
Depends on: 1330659
A key aspect to ensuring the usability/accessibility of the Firefox dialog implementation is to move focus to the dialog container when a dialog is displayed. This is not what is currently specced, but there is a related issue https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1929 I would suggest that firefox should implement whats best for users rather than whats in the spec, in this regards. Another consideration is moving focus back to the triggering element when a dialog is dismissed.
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #20) > A key aspect to ensuring the usability/accessibility of the Firefox dialog > implementation is to move focus to the dialog container when a dialog is > displayed. This is not what is currently specced, but there is a related > issue https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1929 I would suggest that > firefox should implement whats best for users rather than whats in the spec, > in this regards. > > Another consideration is moving focus back to the triggering element when a > dialog is dismissed. After further discussion on this spec bug https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1929 There appears to be rough consensus around implementing default focus on the dialog element.
I've been asked a colleague at Google to make a note about the spec's use of the concept "inert" - and, that as part of implementing `dialog`, we should use the same infrastructure to implement the "inert" attribute as per: https://github.com/WICG/inert I'm super supportive of that idea, as inert seems super useful (and it's being implemented in Chrome).
Ref: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=710523#c5 Don't forget to apply `contain: strict` style, after https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1150081 implemented.
I think this has been available in stable release under the flag “dom.dialog_element.enabled”?
(In reply to Zhaolin Yu from comment #26) > I think this has been available in stable release under the flag > “dom.dialog_element.enabled”? Yeah, there's an incomplete implementation available under that flag.
Opera Presto does not support this.
Whiteboard: [parity-chrome][parity-opera] → [parity-chrome]
Unassigning to reflect real status.
Assignee: ntim.bugs → nobody
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Mass bug change to replace various 'parity' whiteboard flags with the new canonical keywords. (See bug 1443764 comment 13.)
Found a bug: You can't style the showModal() backdrop via "dialog::backdrop". Should this be a separate issue? Test case: https://demo.agektmr.com/dialog/
(In reply to Starbeamrainbowlabs from comment #32) > Found a bug: You can't style the showModal() backdrop via > "dialog::backdrop". Should this be a separate issue? > > Test case: https://demo.agektmr.com/dialog/ That’s not implemented as `<dialog>` isn’t yet fully implemented (bug 1322939). Also, we know that `dialog::backdrop` isn’t yet supported: https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/CSS/::backdrop#Browser_compatibility
Many thanks for that, @ExeBoss. I'll follow that bug then. I'd have thought I'd be implemented already, but I guess for now I'll use a polyfill :-/
Is there any progress with this? I'm worried it may be removed from the spec due to lack of support. See @domenic's comments https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3567#issuecomment-451451406
I think we are still interested in implementing it, especially given there are developer requests. IIUC, the remaining pieces are focusing steps, modal, and accessibility. Focusing steps seem to be reasonably straightforward itself. Since we don't support inert, we can ignore the inert check for now. I have no idea how much work accessibility would take. Modal is probably the most non-trivial one. It requires some degree of inert support, and it needs some refactor to the top layer stack as mentioned in comment 12. However, since we are probably not going to support multiple fullscreen element from different subtree (bug 1195213), some of the interaction between fullscreen and modal dialog can become tricky again, which may need some more thought.
(Added a comment in whatwg/fullscreen#140 for interaction between modal dialog and fullscreen.)
See Also: → https://webcompat.com/issues/25225
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.