Ian Hickson wrote:
In all of these cases, there are at most three segments: low, medium, and
high, and in fact in all cases you could get away with having at most two
segments (i.e. just having a "low" or "high" marker).
mmm, I've seen a *lot* of gauges that have a "low" threshold and a "critical"
threshold. I don't know what you mean by "get away with".
I agree that Mikko's points about "good" and "bad" are important.
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2004-September/002271.html
To set the scale for a three-segment gauge you need to know
- min value
- max value
- lower threshold
- upper threshold
- optimum
Min/max set the range, the thresholds segment it, and the optimum tells
you where it's green, with red and orange (if applicable) falling out from
that.
+1 for <gauge> over the rest. It's both accurate and precise imo.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Brad Fults wrote:
My proposed solution (or direction toward a solution) is no harder to
implement.
Your solution has multiple elements. The alternative has one element.
There is an order of magnitude increase in complexity (in the spec, in the
implementation, and in usage) when you start allowing or requiring more
than one element to achive an effect.
It's a difference between hard-coding a 2- or 3-level indicator and
making one that can have an arbitrary number of children. This isn't
rocket science at all, but rather something that's already been done in
many other parts of HTML (e.g. select/option).
<select>/<option> is _extremely_ complicated to implement. It has its own
special hard-coded HTML parse mode, for instance.
I wonder how much of that is due to the optional end tag on <option>...
The "order of magnitude increase in complexity" due to multiple elements
strikes me as accurate, though.
Just as a note on presentation requirements for CSS or XBL or whatever:
this thing needs to handle graphical 3.5/5 stars and things like that.
~fantasai
