[whatwg] Character-encoding-related threads
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Oct 19 11:22:52 PDT 2012
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-10-19 19:33, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 initial intent of such a document may be to only display it in a
> > frame, but since it's independently addressable, nothing stops a
> > search engine from referencing it, a user from bookmarking it, etc. So
> > I don't think that's an example of where omitting <title> is a good
> > idea.
> Anyone who bookmarks a document that was not meant to be bookmarked
> should accept the consequences.
That doesn't seem like a very user-friendly approach.
> But it seems that it is pointless to present any situations where it
> would be legitimate to omit a <title> element, since you are prepared to
> refuting any possible example by presenting how things could be
> different from the scenario given.
There are definitely cases where it's ok to not have the title. For
example, a srcdoc="" document doesn't need a title, since it's not
independently addressable. An e-mail has a Subject line so if its body is
HTML, it doesn't need a <title>. Both these examples are in the spec.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg