Re: why TITLE, not TITLE?

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:30:06 -0500


Message-Id: <l03110706aff94c721489@[198.77.183.213]>
In-Reply-To: <199707210313.XAA18469@fnx.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:30:06 -0500
To: abigail@fnx.com, chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chad Owen Yoshikawa)
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Subject: Re: why TITLE, not TITLE?
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 10:13 PM -0500 07-20-1997, Abigail wrote:
>You, Chad Owen Yoshikawa, wrote on May 11:
>++
>++ > The TITLE of a document has a very specific purpose. To UNIQUELY identify
>++ > the document in human-readable terms. That's a very important
>property that
>++ > most designers ignore. I've seen whole sites that use the same TITLE over
>++ > tens of pages. A document's TITLE is obviously required and should be
>made
>++ > as unique as possible, so as to distinguish it from others.
>++
>++ I thought about this, but the TITLE isn't unique.  It's not
>++ like a filename, since the URL serves that purpose.

>No, not really. HTML document can exist without being on the web; for
>instance HTMLized manuals on a CD-ROM. Furthermore, documents on the
>web may have more than one URL; or a document moves to a different URL -
>without changing the title.

If anyone has any doubt on the necessity of individually naming your
documents, just check out any kind of documentation on metadata.  Titles
are an integral part of this metadata, and as such it is necessary to have
different titles.

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------