Raised by: Satish in mail.
Raised by: Satish in mail.
Raised by: Charles in mail.
Discussion: Satish: 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?
Charles: 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.
Resolution: Leave as is, should allow either for or nesting.