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 13160 - The progress element has redundant and confusing specification of value and max
Summary: The progress element has redundant and confusing specification of value and max
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-07-06 13:23 UTC by Dominic Cooney
Modified: 2011-08-13 09:43 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Dominic Cooney 2011-07-06 13:23:33 UTC
This paragraph describing the progress element is confusing:

The value and max attributes, when present, must have values that are valid floating point numbers. The value attribute, if present, must have a value equal to or greater than zero, and less than or equal to the value of the max attribute, if present, or 1.0, otherwise. The max attribute, if present, must have a value greater than zero.

Presumably this refers to the attributes specified in the IDL, in which case there is no possibility for them to be missing. So the "when present" language is confusing.

If it refers to the attribute nodes, then it doesnt specify what the UA should do when an invalid value is parsed, set via setAttribute, etc.

Assuming that this refers to the attributes specified in the IDL, then I believe that paragraph should be struck. The subsequent paragraphs specify what value those attributes should have.

This came up at the bottom of this WebKit bug thread: <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63861>
Comment 1 Anne 2011-07-06 13:36:48 UTC
Those are requirements for authors (and for the content attributes, not the IDL attributes). The requirements for user agents come later as you say.
Comment 2 Anne 2011-07-06 13:39:26 UTC
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63861#c7 suggests though that someone implementing looked at the wrong bit. I have seen this happen elsewhere too. Maybe by default we should highlight the implementor text and try to educate implementors about that?
Comment 3 Dominic Cooney 2011-07-06 14:35:54 UTC
Highlighting the UA implementors instructions sounds useful.
Comment 4 Lucas Sa 2011-07-06 17:42:50 UTC
A bit later in the specification, you can see what UAs should do when there is no value or max attributes:

"User agent requirements: If the value attribute is omitted, then the progress bar is an indeterminate progress bar. Otherwise, it is a determinate progress bar.

If the progress bar is a determinate progress bar and the element has a max attribute, the user agent must parse the max attribute's value according to the rules for parsing floating point number values. If this does not result in an error, and if the parsed value is greater than zero, then the maximum value of the progress bar is that value. 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."

Therefore, I understand that there is no problem with the "when present" language.
Comment 5 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:12:14 UTC
mass-move component to LC1
Comment 6 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-08-12 22:42:15 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: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: 

The implementor requirements are highlighted in this copy of the spec:
   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/?style=highlight

I recently added some text to the "how to read this spec" section that goes into more detail about this issue. I'm not sure what else I can do.
Comment 7 Anne 2011-08-13 09:43:53 UTC
Well, we could make highlighting the default.