- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:27:41 -0400
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Aryeh Gregor<Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. It sort of looks like I'm harping on this, doesn't it? I don't really care, actually, FWIW. I'm an author, not an implementer, so extra features aren't a burden to me. I just thought it was incongruous when reading the spec. If other people think <progress>/<meter> would be useful enough to justify implementation, then no problem. I personally don't see the need to debate it further.
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 15:27:41 UTC