[whatwg] [WA1] Title Element Content Model
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Feb 28 17:52:47 PST 2007
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> The current draft states :
> | In HTML (as opposed to XHTML), the title element must not contain
> | content other than text and entities; user agents must parse the
> | element so that entities are recognised and processed, but all other
> | markup is interpreted as literal text.
> I think that should be changed to state:
> "... but, for backwards compatibility, all other markup (such as
> elements and comments) should be interpreted as literal text."
This is all defined in the syntax section now:
...and the <title> element section doesn't have any of this stuff.
> I don't think intentionally broken behaviour should ever be a strict
> requirement, only a strong recommendation for backwards compatibility.
I disagree. Given a ~97% non-compliance rate, interoperability depends
almost exclusively on handling of broken content.
> Although, are there any valid reasons as to why this requirement must be
> retained, even in standards compliant mode? Would many sites break if
> it were fixed in standards mode?
What would you consider "fixed"?
> | In XHTML, the title element must not contain any elements.
> I disagree with this. XHTML 2 has been updated to allow markup within
> the title element and I think this XHTML should too. Since we can
> change the content models for XHTML, I see no reason not too.
Given your arguments in help at whatwg.org and your comments in #whatwg, I
assume you have changed your mind. :-)
(The answer is that <title> must be usable in pure-text enviroments --
indeed, the whole point of <title> is pure text environments; for rich
markup, use your page's <h1>.)
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg