After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 153968 - Focus for GtkScrollable
Focus for GtkScrollable
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 63480
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Widget: Other
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-09-28 15:22 UTC by David Christian Berg
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description David Christian Berg 2004-09-28 15:22:51 UTC 
Even though I know, that gtk scrollables don't really get a focus, in many cases
it would make sense to visually give them a focus, when the focus is inside
(scrollables with lists or treeviews especially).
Now I wonder, can you make this possible?
Comment 1 Vincent Noel 2004-09-28 18:41:31 UTC 
Can you give an example of an application where you cannot get focus on the gtk
scrollable ?
Comment 2 Owen Taylor 2004-09-28 18:46:15 UTC 
A) There's no such thing a a "scrollable"
 
B) I think there is a bug open about drawing a focus indicator for
   GtkScrolledWindow when the scrolled window is getting keystrokes
   but there is no focused child.
Comment 3 David Christian Berg 2004-09-28 18:55:37 UTC 
Sorry for that... Yeah, GtkScrolledWindow is what I'm talking about. Point is,
as I said, that the focus is not actually on the scrolled window but a widget
inside (GtkList or TreeView) or the text inside.

It might be that there is a open bug. Frankly I gave up on bugzilla. It's not
really user friendly... for me at least.

I'm not really familiar with Gtk, just theming, but I hope could explain well
enought, what I'm wishing for.
Comment 4 Matthias Clasen 2004-09-29 05:16:34 UTC 
Bug 63480 mentions focus indication for GtkScrolledWindow.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 63480 ***