- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:40:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8552 --- Comment #13 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2009-12-29 15:40:34 --- (In reply to comment #12) > While the best mapping of XForms' range to HTML5 would indeed most often be > adorned input (thx for reminding; I check on the proliferation of input/@type > values only occasionally), the reverse mapping would give range (used with > read-only MIP) for HTML5's proposed progress as well. I disagree. There is no mapping from HTML5 <progress> to XForms that preserves semantic fidelity. What you describe would be the XForms equivalent of <input type=range readonly>. But <progress> does not have the same semantics as <input type=range readonly>. One represents a progress indicator. The other represents a range with a particular value selected, and not currently alterable by the user. These are not the same thing. > Genericity of XForms' set of controls (device independence, presentation agnosticism, > features nice for a11y, l10n and m12n) is a better approach. This is really not the place to debate the merits of XForms vs. HTML. Suffice it to say that HTML takes a different approach. > HTML is not a UI (actually even GUI) language and it would be both unwise and grotesque > (given the basis of HTML forms' legacy) to extend it too much in that direction. HTML was not originally designed as a UI language, but it has evolved to be a language for both documents and applications. And the HTML WG is chartered to evolve HTML to support both documents and applications. > I see two very viable styling solutions, both author friendly. One is functional notations in > appearance values capable of expressing the necessary facets you mention. This is still less author-friendly than a single interface that takes care of appearance, behavior and accessibility considerations at at once. > The other is a binding (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0739.html > for something similar). Thoughts, preferences, anybody? HTML5 does in fact express the intended rendering and interaction behavior of the <progress> element as a binding. However, it seems to me that as specified it is not a binding that could be reused on an arbitrary element. More generally, I think the cited message is based on an incorrect premise -- that the subject matter of HTML is only "hypertext", defined so narrowly as to exclude even multimedia. That may have been true once, but hasn't been for at least a decade. > Even if progress is included, I strongly prefer a styling solution which would > also be applicable beyond HTML5 (indeed, XForms comes promptly to mind). You're certainly welcome to propose a syntax to get the styling of a native progress bar, but I think the CSS WG would be a more appropriate venue. -- 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 Tuesday, 29 December 2009 15:40:39 UTC