Ian Hickson wrote:
This seems to be a case where "there should be one, and preferably
only one, obvious way to do it" holds.
Well, there are two ways -- update the textContent, and update the
attribute. But for the attribute, there's only one syntax. We could remove
the attribute as well, and force authors to use textContent, though...
i think it best to un-link the content and value as we cant predict all
possible use cases, this
is a simple use case, where the content and value are obviously linked
but this is not:
<meter value="0.25">400k / 16,000k</meter>
now, the author could well be specifying min/max but if the file
may look something like
eMeter.value = fUploaded / fTotal;
eMeter.innerHTML = fUploaded + "k / " + fTotal + "k";
depending on if styling rules allow the value and content to both be
rendered, or maybe the author is conscious of allowing the progress
to be shown on different target devices.
The only difference between meter and progress is the potential for
progress to be dynamic.
That's a big difference. It means the UI for one has to show that it is
static, and the UI for the other has to show that it should "end".
which is laudable, and makes sense, but each will be updatable on the
fly. a meter has to have this ability, e.g. allowing CNN to show the
election votes cast on their home page, updated asynchronously. and with
that ability will come authors who use one exclusively, merely applying
style sheet rules (<meter class="votes">), or use either in place of the
other ad hoc, depending on their styling rules. thus there's no way that
a UA can be forced to show that a progress indicator is, indeed,