W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2004


From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:38:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4107580F.7000103@annevankesteren.nl>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

>> So instead of having a TITLE attribute a DESCRIPTION element would
>> be needed? To not interfere with the "special" semantics of the
>> TITLE element.
> The TITLE element as currently defined is a bit special, and its
> semantics clearly reflect some practical ideas on how it should
> affect the environment where the document is rendered. But if a
> general-purpose TITLE element would be introduced, then the good old
> TITLE element could be a special case - the advisory title for the
> HEAD element, to be used by default as the advisory title for the
> root element as well.

I still think there is a small difference between the TITLE attribute 
and element and therefore, there should be a difference between the 
TITLE element and the "TITLE attribute element replacement". The TITLE 
attribute is intended for giving a description of the element's contents 
or behavior. Like:

  <a href="http://www.google.com/"
     title="Google is the world largest search engine"

  <a href="http://example.com/example">
     title="This is an external link"

Therefore, introducing DESCRIPTION might make sense.

>> I have actually thought about such a thing before, since I wanted
>> to include ABBR in the title to mark up abbreviations. Obviously,
>> that was impossible.
> There are many kinds of inline markup that one might wish to use
> inside an advisory title, or similar constructs (such as the SUMMARY
> attribute's value).

You are aware they changed the XHTML 2.0 table model to make SUMMARY a 
element[1] rather than an attribute?


  Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 03:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:08 UTC