- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:38:55 +0200
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
>> So instead of having a TITLE attribute a DESCRIPTION element would >> be needed? To not interfere with the "special" semantics of the >> TITLE element. > > The TITLE element as currently defined is a bit special, and its > semantics clearly reflect some practical ideas on how it should > affect the environment where the document is rendered. But if a > general-purpose TITLE element would be introduced, then the good old > TITLE element could be a special case - the advisory title for the > HEAD element, to be used by default as the advisory title for the > root element as well. I still think there is a small difference between the TITLE attribute and element and therefore, there should be a difference between the TITLE element and the "TITLE attribute element replacement". The TITLE attribute is intended for giving a description of the element's contents or behavior. Like: <a href="http://www.google.com/" rel="search" title="Google is the world largest search engine" >Google</a> <a href="http://example.com/example"> title="This is an external link" >Examples</a> Therefore, introducing DESCRIPTION might make sense. >> I have actually thought about such a thing before, since I wanted >> to include ABBR in the title to mark up abbreviations. Obviously, >> that was impossible. > > There are many kinds of inline markup that one might wish to use > inside an advisory title, or similar constructs (such as the SUMMARY > attribute's value). You are aware they changed the XHTML 2.0 table model to make SUMMARY a element[1] rather than an attribute? [1]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/mod-tables.html#sec_26.3.> -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 03:39:50 UTC