- From: Řistein E. Andersen <liszt@coq.no>
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:54:28 +0100
On 18 Apr 2009, at 00:02, Randy Drielinger wrote: > If you're converting from a textfile, title could refer to the > filename. It could, but chances are that the original filename would typically be less useful than the URL, which is what most browsers use when the <title> element is omitted, so this rather sounds like an argument against forcing authors to include a <title>. On 18 Apr 2009, at 02:10, Michael Enright wrote: > If you want a title, put a title element in. Quite. > Is the concern about validation? Yes, my concern is that a validator should be useful as an authoring tool and not overwhelm the author with spurious errors. As I see it, leaving out <title> is very much like leaving out a paragraph of text and not something that should matter for validation. > Could the validator's warning about missing doctype be taken as > advisory? [...] It only affects the details of rendering (by turning > off quirks) The doctype could technically be made optional in documents on which it has little or no impact (including in particular documents with no JavaScript, CSS or equivalent HTML attributes), but this would arguably add quite a bit of complexity and also make it slightly more difficult to add (certain classes of) CSS, since a doctype would have to be added to give the expected rendering (and for the document to remain conforming). -- ?istein E. Andersen
Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 04:54:28 UTC