Re: title

Abigail (abigail@ny.fnx.com)
Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:41:44 -0400 (EDT)


Message-Id: <199609282041.QAA12849@melgor.ny.fnx.com>
Subject: Re: title
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Abigail" <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
In-Reply-To: <199609220244.VAA15884@inet.htcnet.com> from "Carl Morris" at Sep 21, 96 09:40:53 pm

You, Carl Morris, wrote:
++ 
++ For better understanding, I want to argue about something with others
++ who may be able to shed some light on the subject...
++ 
++ HTML is always stating that <TITLE> is required.  I honestly see no
++ reason why, it doesn't always have a meaningful purpose, but the main
++ arguement is that HTML also describes that <HTML> and <HEAD> are not
++ required...  If I take this right though, a proper implementation must
++ only accept <TITLE> inside <HEAD> and then must only accept <HEAD>
++ inside <HTML>...  what is it that allows <TITLE> to be a requirement
++ but the others not?  Does the use of <TITLE> also bring in the
++ assumption of the <HEAD> and <HTML> tags?  If so, would it be incorrect
++ to place <TITLE> at the end of a document?  I do not see such a
++ requirement made in the HTML specification...  Is it this same kind of
++ assumptions that make MSIE decode TXT files as <HTML> files when they
++ include HTML tags? (this is not fully tested, but rename an HTML file
++ to TXT and send it to MSIE with a content type of text/plain and MSIE
++ will instead render the HTML...

You got it wrong. The HTML DTD requires the elements <HTML>, <HEAD> and
<TITLE>. It is just that the opening and closing _tags_ of <HTML> and
<HEAD> are optional. They can be deduced from the context.  It's the
same for <BODY>.

The elements are there, they just don't have to be "visible".



Abigail