- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:44:54 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11937 --- Comment #5 from Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com> 2011-05-09 10:44:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Well don't forget that all those cases where value="" is present but you're > saying should be treated as indeterminate are cases where the element is > invalid anyway, so authors really shouldn't be doing any of them anyway. But they are going to do that :) > Re :indeterminate, it seems easier to define :indeterminate just as a matter of > whether an attribute is present or not than require that the UA parse the > attribute to determine it. We are already requesting that kind of stuff for :in-range and :out-of-range which only apply if min and max have a valid value. In addition, for the ease of implementation, .value is a double so it's very likely that the UA knows if the value is a valid double or not. > Plus, Opera and WebKit already do this... The progress element isn't used that much and Opera and Webkit implementations already have a few differences with the current specifications. I do not think we should worry about that. > I dunno, it doesn't seem very compelling to me. Actually, now that :indeterminate is in the specifications, I wonder why we still need the current behavior. You said it was useful to check if the progress is indeterminate but now, why is it? I do not believe changing the specs would cost anything at this point so being conservative seems worthless. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 10:44:56 UTC