W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Feedback on XHTML 2.0 WD (20030131)

From: Toby A Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:41:19 +0000
To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Cc: www-html@w3c.org
Message-ID: <20030329074119.GA29235@ophelia.goddamn.co.uk>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:19:18PM -0800, Etan Wexler wrote:
| The naughty author can use empty content:
| 
| <title></title>
| 
| That is as useless as the absence of a 'title' element. So the question is
| whether requiring a 'title' element encourages writing an actual title. I
| think that the requirement does encourage good writing, but I would like to
| see evidence supporting or contradicting this assumption.

Here is some evidence showing that having a <title/> element does not 
neccessarily encourage good titles:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22untitled+document%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Welcome+to+Adobe+GoLive+%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22insert+document+title%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22page+title%22

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS | mailto:tobyink@goddamn.co.uk | pgp:0x6A2A7D39
    aim:inka80 | icq:6622880 | yahoo:tobyink | jabber:tobyink@a-message.de
            http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/ | "You've got spam!"
                             playing://(nothing)

Received on Saturday, 29 March 2003 02:41:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT