- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:11:48 -0500
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Aryeh Gregor<Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk at opera.com> wrote: >> You seem to base most of your argument on that <progress> will not be stylable. I think the idea is that it will be stylable though. > > Yes, I guess I got sort of sidetracked. ?I assume the idea is that it > will be styleable eventually, but I don't see how it would work with > existing CSS properties, so I'd assume it would take significant > implementation effort and not happen very soon. ?I don't think it will > be used very widely or usefully until it becomes styleable. > > Beyond that, the use-cases just seem very narrow compared to other > elements invented in HTML 5. ?The number of progress bars needed on > the web is pretty modest, and the gains from marking them up > semantically don't seem to be large. ?For some particular types of > progress bars, <progress> gives better accessibility than any > straightforward existing possibility I can think of, but a) authors > concerned about accessibility could usually add some kind of text > without any trouble, and b) the progress of some activity is rarely > critical information in web apps, so if you're missing it you usually > won't be missing much anyway. Well, it's a default widget in jQuery UI. I think that makes a good case for it being common enough that it'll see use. (For reference, the other default widgets are a datepicker and slider, which are new <input> types, a styleable dialog box, and then accordion and tab displays (which were hit by some proposals between Brad Kemper and I on the CSS list a while back).) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 14:11:48 UTC