[Bug 9904] New: <progress> element: max IDL attribute should return 1 not 0 when the content attribute is missing

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9904

           Summary: <progress> element: max IDL attribute should return 1
                    not 0 when the content attribute is missing
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
               URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-button-element.html#t
                    he-progress-element
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson)
        AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
        ReportedBy: adrianba@microsoft.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org


Propose to change

"The max and value IDL attributes must reflect the respective content
attributes of the same name. When the relevant content attributes are absent,
the IDL attributes must return zero."

to instead read something along the lines of:

"The max and value IDL attributes must reflect the respective content
attributes of the same name. When the value content attributes is absent, the
value IDL attribute must return zero.  When the max content attribute is
absent, the max IDL attribute must return one."

The reason is that in a previous paragraph, the spec says "Otherwise, if the
element has no max attribute, or if it has one but parsing it resulted in an
error, or if the parsed value was less than or equal to zero, then the maximum
value of the progress bar is 1.0."

It makes sense that if the progress bar is using 1.0 as its maximum value then
this should be the value returned by the IDL attribute if the content attribute
is missing. Without this, code that consumes the IDL attribute has to also
include the logic above from the spec to know how the control will behave.

-- 
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 Thursday, 10 June 2010 19:20:52 UTC