> > > 1. The <reco> element should probably be a void element with no > content on its own ( > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#void-elements) > > I just noticed this in the for attribute's description, missed it in earlier reads: "If the for attribute is not specified, but the reco element has a recoable element descendant, then the first such descendant in tree order is the reco element's reco control." Is there a benefit to doing this over requiring the 'for' attribute to be set and making <reco> a void element?
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 21:23:49 UTC