feeback on the reco element

1. There should be a proper example about the @for attribute for <reco>

The first example in 7.1.7:

 <reco for="q"/>
 <input id="q" name="q" type="text"/>

could be better written as

 <reco>
   <input name="q" type="text"/>
 </reco>

It would be better to have an example that shows why @for is useful (and
why nested <reco> hasn't covered the use cases of @for already)

2. The IDL lang attribute on HTMLRecoElement inherited from SpeechReco
has conflict with the lang attribute reflecting the @lang attribute.

Is unifying the two the idea? If it is, I am not sure having a separate
request attribute is making sense. Is it the intention to have reco.lang
=== reco.request.lang and so on?

3. I am not sure if NamedConstructor=Reco(in DOMString for) is good design.

Why isn't NamedConstructor=Reco(in HTMLElement form) better? FormData[1]
from XMLHttpRequest uses something like this too.

4. In the description of the control attribute, the third paragraph says
"The reco IDL attribute", which should probably read "The recos IDL
attribute". Also, it would be less confusing if the second and third
paragraphs are merged.

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#interface-formdata


I think in general, the sections of the document related to <reco> and
<tts> should have more cross-document references to the HTML spec for
terms like "active document" and so on. The intention to make <reco> a
form-associated element should be written down somewhere in this section
too.


Cheers,
Kenny

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 14:00:45 UTC