Expose InlineTextBoxes in the accessibility tree.

Source/core/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeObject.cpp

Index: Source/core/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeObject.cpp
diff --git a/Source/core/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeObject.cpp b/Source/core/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeObject.cpp
index 8fa26de0e085f1301aca2141d9e1acc16ec88adc..d124abec69291b013db38e52d8b78dba18ce235e 100644
--- a/Source/core/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeObject.cpp
+++ b/Source/core/accessibility/AccessibilityNodeObject.cpp
@@ -1377,10 +1377,12 @@ bool AccessibilityNodeObject::canHaveChildren() const
     case RadioButtonRole:
     case TabRole:
     case ToggleButtonRole:
-    case StaticTextRole:
     case ListBoxOptionRole:
     case ScrollBarRole:
         return false;
+    case StaticTextRole:
+        if (!axObjectCache()->inlineTextBoxAccessibility())

[aboxhall, 2013/09/06 17:19:21]

return axObjectCache()->inlineTextBoxAccessibility() ? Or is it desirable to
fall through to the default here?

[dmazzoni, 2013/09/06 20:25:27]

I find it slightly more clear to have it fall through - i.e. read the code as
"StaticTextRole should not have children, unless the inlineTextBoxAccessibility
flag is on".

I would find "return axObjectCache()->inlineTextBoxAccessibility()" less clear,
given the comment at the top of the switch. But I could move the test outside of
the switch with its own comment if you think that would be more clear.

[aboxhall, 2013/09/06 20:51:12]

This is fine. I tend to prefer not to do things like "if (!condition) return
false else return true" but I agree it makes sense semantically here.

+            return false;
     default:
         return true;
     }