- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:15:41 +0300
- To: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
2012-10-19 2:09, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: [...] >> 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. My point is that the title may be irrelevant, rather than specified using a higher-level protocol. > Are there any situations that this doesn't handle where it would be > legitimate to omit a <title> element? Perhaps the simplest case is an HTML document that is only meant to be displayed inside an inline frame and containing, say, just a numeric table. It is not meant to be found and indexed by search engines, it is not supposed to be rendered as a standalone document with a browser top bar (or equivalent) showing its title, etc. The current wording looks OK to me, and it to me, it says that a title is not needed when the document is not to be used out of context: "The title element represents the document's title or name. Authors should use titles that identify their documents even when they are used out of context, for example in a user's history or bookmarks, or in search results." http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-title-element Authors may still wish to use a <title> element in a document that is to be just shown in an inline frame, but it is comment-like then. I don't think it's something that should be required (even in a "should" clause). Yucca
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 05:16:10 UTC