Re: why TITLE, not TITLE?

Paul Prescod (papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Thu, 08 May 1997 22:23:24 -0400


Message-ID: <33728A9C.1D899970@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 22:23:24 -0400
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: Chad Owen Yoshikawa <chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: why TITLE, not TITLE?

Chad Owen Yoshikawa wrote:
> 'Why is it that TITLE is a required member of the HEAD element?'

The title is something you can put in search engine hitlists.
The title is something you can put on "back buttons".
The title is something you can put in "hotlists".
The title is a really good thing to prioritize in a keyword search.
There is no good reason that a document shouldn't have a title. If you
want the URL to be the title, make the URL the title.

What do you have against title?

> This means that:
> Hello World
> is invalid HTML, while 
> <TITLE>foo</TITLE>
> Hello World
> is valid HTML.

No, the latter is not valid HTML 3.2, no matter what your checker says.
The HTML 3.2 specification is very explicit on this point. Check the
spec:

http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/REC-html32.html#html

 Paul Prescod