- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:52:47 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > The current draft states [1]: > > | In HTML (as opposed to XHTML), the title element must not contain > | content other than text and entities; user agents must parse the > | element so that entities are recognised and processed, but all other > | markup is interpreted as literal text. > > I think that should be changed to state: > > "... but, for backwards compatibility, all other markup (such as > elements and comments) should be interpreted as literal text." This is all defined in the syntax section now: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#writing ...and the <title> element section doesn't have any of this stuff. > I don't think intentionally broken behaviour should ever be a strict > requirement, only a strong recommendation for backwards compatibility. I disagree. Given a ~97% non-compliance rate, interoperability depends almost exclusively on handling of broken content. > Although, are there any valid reasons as to why this requirement must be > retained, even in standards compliant mode? Would many sites break if > it were fixed in standards mode? What would you consider "fixed"? > | In XHTML, the title element must not contain any elements. > > I disagree with this. XHTML 2 has been updated to allow markup within > the title element and I think this XHTML should too. Since we can > change the content models for XHTML, I see no reason not too. Given your arguments in help at whatwg.org and your comments in #whatwg, I assume you have changed your mind. :-) (The answer is that <title> must be usable in pure-text enviroments -- indeed, the whole point of <title> is pure text environments; for rich markup, use your page's <h1>.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 17:52:47 UTC