This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 12254 - Investigate if <progress> element wouldn't need to be form-associated element
Summary: Investigate if <progress> element wouldn't need to be form-associated element
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 8554
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-03-06 10:26 UTC by Olli Pettay
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:12 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Olli Pettay 2011-03-06 10:26:10 UTC
Apparently <progress> element is "form-associated" just because of label,
but what useful feature does the .form attribute bring in?
<progress> isn't submittable, nor resettable, and not even
"listed element", so it doesn't show up in form.elements.
There is just .form in the progress element, but from that .form you can't
even get back to progress.
Quite strange.


<meter> has similar problem.
Comment 1 Olli Pettay 2011-03-06 10:32:40 UTC
Perhaps "Labelable elements" should be changed so that they don't need to be
"form-associated"
Comment 2 Olli Pettay 2011-03-06 12:21:42 UTC
Another possibility, in which case having progress/meter form-associated makes
more sense, would be to make them resettable. That would make them work
closer to output.
In a way progress/meter are different kinds of representations of some
abstract output.
Comment 3 Adrian Bateman [MSFT] 2011-03-07 20:17:37 UTC
Since progress/meter are not submitted as part of the form I think that removing .form makes the most sense.
Comment 4 Mounir Lamouri 2011-03-08 01:25:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Since progress/meter are not submitted as part of the form I think that
> removing .form makes the most sense.

What about the output element then?
Comment 5 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-05-07 18:54:39 UTC
I just modeled <progress> and <meter> after <label>, which is form-associated in the same (somewhat pointless) way. I can't really think of any reason that labelable elements should be form-associated, so if nobody has a desire to keep them form-associated (e.g. because it would make implementing it harder), I would be fine with changing the 'labelable' category to be a separate concept from 'form-associated'.
Comment 6 Mounir Lamouri 2011-06-06 14:34:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> I just modeled <progress> and <meter> after <label>, which is form-associated
> in the same (somewhat pointless) way. I can't really think of any reason that
> labelable elements should be form-associated, so if nobody has a desire to keep
> them form-associated (e.g. because it would make implementing it harder), I
> would be fine with changing the 'labelable' category to be a separate concept
> from 'form-associated'.

I don't see any reason to keep <meter> and <progress> as form-associated elements because they are labelable elements. If making them resettable is out of consideration, I don't see any strong reason to keep them form-associated.
Comment 7 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-06-14 00:33:00 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments.
Comment 8 contributor 2011-06-14 00:33:20 UTC
Checked in as WHATWG revision r6221.
Check-in comment: Remove <progress form> and <meter form> since they are basically useless.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6220&to=6221
Comment 9 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:12:49 UTC
mass-move component to LC1