W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > November 2011

RE: Next HTML web api document

From: Charles Hemphill <charles@everspeech.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:36:02 -0700
To: "'Satish S'" <satish@google.com>, "'Michael Bodell'" <mbodell@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>, <johnston@research.att.com>
Message-ID: <0d0701cc99f2$e193b1b0$a4bb1510$@everspeech.com>
I addressed this in a previous post.  Whatever reasoning applies to the
<label> element also applies to the <reco> element:


The wrapping approach supports a direct association.  When cut-and-paste is
used, this avoids bugs if a developer forgets to match the value of the
"for" attribute with the new ID.  This also keeps consistency with the
<label> element so developers can always know that the "for" attribute is
optional and wrapping can be used instead.


From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Michael Bodell
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org; johnston@research.att.com
Subject: Re: Next HTML web api document


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


"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 Thursday, 3 November 2011 06:36:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:51 UTC