12254 2011-03-06 10:26:10 +0000 Investigate if <progress> element wouldn't need to be form-associated element 2011-08-04 05:12:49 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 8554 1 bugs ian adrianba annevk ian jonas mike mounir public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 46427 0 bugs 2011-03-06 10:26:10 +0000 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. 46428 1 bugs 2011-03-06 10:32:40 +0000 Perhaps "Labelable elements" should be changed so that they don't need to be "form-associated" 46430 2 bugs 2011-03-06 12:21:42 +0000 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. 46469 3 adrianba 2011-03-07 20:17:37 +0000 Since progress/meter are not submitted as part of the form I think that removing .form makes the most sense. 46494 4 mounir 2011-03-08 01:25:06 +0000 (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? 48289 5 ian 2011-05-07 18:54:39 +0000 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'. 49215 6 mounir 2011-06-06 14:34:57 +0000 (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. 49544 7 ian 2011-06-14 00:33:00 +0000 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. 49545 8 contributor 2011-06-14 00:33:20 +0000 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 53333 9 mike 2011-08-04 05:12:49 +0000 mass-move component to LC1