Re: Chatter around titles

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Shane P. McCarron <> wrote:
> I guess. Not sure why you would want to embed markup in it but yes. It would
> work.

Well, I don't, but let me back up to the beginning, I think there are
a few discrete issues that are conflated here. :)

I understand that there is a form of meta that overlaps semantically
with title. When meta had a content model of Text*, one could
effectively generate a title that had markup in it. What I was
addressing in my initial message, before I was aware that you had
changed the content model back to EMPTY, was that if a meta element
could mean the same thing as the title and contain markup, why not the
title element itself? More specifically, is there a reason that the
title element's content should be relegated to #PCDATA*? (I can live
with a #PCDATA-only title element, it just made sense to me to match
the form of meta such that they were truly equivalent - such that the
meta element wasn't "richer" than the title.)

Upon notification that the content model in link and meta were
removed, I began to think instead of cases in which it would be useful
to have a canonically non-displaying element with marked-up content,
such as what a meta element with a Text* content model would provide.
One case I came up with in particular was the depiction of an
rdf:XMLLiteral out of band from the document's body.

Sorry for the confusion!

Dorian Taylor

Received on Saturday, 11 April 2009 21:23:41 UTC