- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > 2012-06-29 23:42, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > Currently you need a DOCTYPE, a character encoding declaration, a > > title, and some content. I'd love to be in a position where the empty > > string would be a valid document, personally. > > Is content really necessary? The validator.nu service accepts the > following: > > <!DOCTYPE html><title></title> It's a SHOULD-level requirement; search the spec for the word "palpable". > But the <title> element isn't really needed, and unless I'm mistaken, > the current rules allow its omission under some conditions - which > cannot be tested algorithmically, so conformance checkers should issue a > warning at most about missing <title>. > > It might be better to declare <title> optional but strongly recommend > its use on web or intranet pages (it might be rather irrelevant in other > uses of HTML). That's basically what the spec says -- if there's a higher-level protocol that gives a <title>, then it's not required. It's only required if there's no way to get a title. Are there any situations that this doesn't handle where it would be legitimate to omit a <title> element? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 23:10:47 UTC