On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:51:17 -0700, Matthew Raymond
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think "for" should be treated analogously to "form". That would mean
> > > > that the element is not associated with any control.
> > >
> > > Back compat wi
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:51:17 -0700, Matthew Raymond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think "for" should be treated analogously to "form". That would mean
that the element is not associated with any control.
Back compat wins this one I think.
That and what's the point of having a with a cont
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I think "for" should be treated analogously to "form". That would mean
>> that the element is not associated with any control.
>
> Back compat wins this one I think.
That and what's the point of having a with a control in
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
> It is not defined what should happen when a label has an empty for=""
> attribute. Consider the following example:
>
> foo
>
> Is the label element part of the .labels DOM attribute for the input?
> What should the label's .control DOM attribute
Quoting Simon Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
It is not defined what should happen when a label has an empty for=""
attribute. Consider the following example:
foo
Is the label element part of the .labels DOM attribute for the input?
What should the label's .control DOM attribute return?
I th
Hi,
It is not defined what should happen when a label has an empty for=""
attribute. Consider the following example:
foo
Is the label element part of the .labels DOM attribute for the input? What
should the label's .control DOM attribute return?
Regards,
Simon Pieters
