RE: H1

>  So you shouldn't be putting navigation
> hints or advertisements, or whatever else some of the other posters
> would call their garbage.

Of course you should, in practice the <title> is used as the default name
for bookmarks and is usually displayed as the title of a search results
listing, so putting your site name there makes the document more usable as
it helps users to identify it.

Nigel

MIS Web Design
http://www.miswebdesign.com/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Jared Warren
> Sent: 12 February 2003 22:27
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: H1
>
>
>
> > But doesn't that make <title> redundant; if it can
> > be unambiguously determined from the first (?only>)
> > <h1>, then why have <title> at all ?
>
> Rather: why have H1 at all?* In most LaTeX styles the title from the
> head is put on the first page. The XHTML equivalent would be including
> the following (which uses Microsoft's proposed expression() value) in
> the default stylesheet:
>
> BODY:before {
>         content:
> expression(document.getElementsByTagName('title').item(0).firstChi
> ld.data);
>         display: block;
>         font-size: 2em;
>         margin: 0.67em 0;
>         font-weight: bolder;
> }
>
> After all, it is entirely arbitrary for UAs to put the contents of the
> TITLE element in the titlebar. So you shouldn't be putting navigation
> hints or advertisements, or whatever else some of the other posters
> would call their garbage. Also, the TITLE of a document is not
> semantically the same as "what the document should be bookmarked as".
> Maybe there should be seperate styles for the titlebar, then you could
> do things like this in your site-wide stylesheet:
>
> TITLEBAR:before {
>         content: 'Royal Holloway : ';
> }
>
> @media bookmark {
>         [...?]
> }
>
> ~ Jared Warren
> Computing Science, Queen's University
>
> * And of course the XHTML2 proposal doesn't rather allowing one H per
> SECTION or BODY, making this entire thread moot.
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:33:57 UTC