<META NAME="TITLE" CONTENT="">

[terry]

Hello,

Some websites put both of the following in the head of their web pages.
Can someone explain the difference, if any?

<META NAME="TITLE" CONTENT="">

<TITLE></TITLE>

Thanks,
Terry

 

[David Dorward]

Some websites put both of the following in the head of their web pages.
Can someone explain the difference, if any?

<META NAME="TITLE" CONTENT="">

Generic meta data with no predefined meaning that seems entirely redundant
as we have...

<TITLE></TITLE>

.... an element especially for specifying the page title, which gets used by
most user agents.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

^^ btw. I'd recommend putting some content in here!

... an element especially for specifying the page title, which gets
used by most user agents.

Indeed, and every valid HTML page contains one of these in its head
part.

There are of course some good-practice recommendations in its use.
Since it seems the questioner either hasn't found, or hasn't read, or
hasn't understood, the relevant specification,

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.4.2

I'd recommend that they peruse that first, and then ask any questions
which arise from it.

 

[terry]

^^ btw. I'd recommend putting some content in here!


Indeed, and every valid HTML page contains one of these in its head
part.

There are of course some good-practice recommendations in its use.
Since it seems the questioner either hasn't found, or hasn't read, or
hasn't understood, the relevant specification,

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.4.2

I'd recommend that they peruse that first, and then ask any questions
which arise from it.

Thanks guys. I *think* I understand now. META NAME="TITLE" serves no
purpose but we put it there anyway. I guess if it doesn't hurt, why not.

Before posting my question I did read the page you recommended Alan but
it makes no mention of META NAME="TITLE". It only talks about
<TITLE></TITLE>. I Googled but didn't come across anything helpful.
That's when I posted my question.

Thanks for the help.
Terry

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Before posting my question I did read the page you recommended Alan but

Well, those who won't make it clear where they are starting from,
mustn't be *too* surprised to be referred to places they've already
been.

it makes no mention of META NAME="TITLE".

Indirectly, it does.

The META element can be used to identify properties of a document
(e.g., author, expiration date, a list of key words, etc.) and assign
values to those properties. This specification does not define a
normative set of properties.

In other words, META NAME="..." is a container for all kinds of stuff,
but their usage isn't codified. It then goes on to say:

Note. The META element is a generic mechanism for specifying meta
data. However, some HTML elements and attributes already handle
certain pieces of meta data and may be used by authors instead of
META to specify those pieces: the TITLE element, the ADDRESS
element, the INS and DEL elements, the title attribute, and the cite
attribute.

I'd say that was a hint that they were guiding readers towards using
the purpose-designed <title> element - wouldn't you?

As yet, no-one has suggested a reason to prefer the use of <meta
name="title"...> , nor am I aware of one myself. I don't suppose it
does any harm, other than cluttering up the document with extra stuff.
But omitting the actual <title> element is not an option, if you want
to write valid HTML - and there are quite a few practical benefits for
getting that right (search engines, summaries, browser title bars -
window and/or tab - bookmark titles etc...)

have fun

 

[terry]

Well, those who won't make it clear where they are starting from,
mustn't be *too* surprised to be referred to places they've already
been.


Indirectly, it does.

The META element can be used to identify properties of a document
(e.g., author, expiration date, a list of key words, etc.) and assign
values to those properties. This specification does not define a
normative set of properties.

In other words, META NAME="..." is a container for all kinds of stuff,
but their usage isn't codified. It then goes on to say:

Note. The META element is a generic mechanism for specifying meta
data. However, some HTML elements and attributes already handle
certain pieces of meta data and may be used by authors instead of
META to specify those pieces: the TITLE element, the ADDRESS
element, the INS and DEL elements, the title attribute, and the cite
attribute.

I'd say that was a hint that they were guiding readers towards using
the purpose-designed <title> element - wouldn't you?

As yet, no-one has suggested a reason to prefer the use of <meta
name="title"...> , nor am I aware of one myself. I don't suppose it
does any harm, other than cluttering up the document with extra stuff.
But omitting the actual <title> element is not an option, if you want
to write valid HTML - and there are quite a few practical benefits for
getting that right (search engines, summaries, browser title bars -
window and/or tab - bookmark titles etc...)

have fun

Thanks Alan! I appreciate the explanation. I do have a better
understanding now.

Terry

 

[Jim Higson]

As yet, no-one has suggested a reason to prefer the use of <meta
name="title"...> , nor am I aware of one myself. I don't suppose it
does any harm, other than cluttering up the document with extra stuff.
But omitting the actual <title> element is not an option, if you want
to write valid HTML - and there are quite a few practical benefits for
getting that right (search engines, summaries, browser title bars -
window and/or tab - bookmark titles etc...)

Zooming out a bit, is there a good reason to use *any* meta elements in
documents for the public internet?

It seems no search engines use them, and nobody ever really sees them on the
page. I never bother; should I?

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Zooming out a bit, is there a good reason to use *any* meta elements in
documents for the public internet?

"Dublin Core" specifies a profile of META usage which some groups
of users find appropriate.

Google suggests http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/

It seems no search engines use them, and nobody ever really sees
them on the page. I never bother; should I?

I guess that if you needed to use them, you would already know about
it ;-)

cheers

 

[Jim Higson]

"Dublin Core" specifies a profile of META usage which some groups
of users find appropriate.

Google suggests http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/

Ah, yes, IIRC OpenDocument uses DublinCore (which is about the only contact
I've had with it). I suppose that could be handy, expecialy if Browsers
ever start showing it.

 

[Dan]

Zooming out a bit, is there a good reason to use *any* meta elements in
documents for the public internet?

I have some discussion here:
http://webtips.dan.info/titles.html

 

[Andy Dingley]

"Dublin Core" specifies a profile of META usage which some groups
of users find appropriate.

With our pedantic hats on, DCMI don't "specify" anything relating to
HTML and <meta> at all. Some people connected with DC have made some
observations about how this could be done, should someone else happen
to be looking for informal observations on the subject. It's a very
long way from "specifies" though.

There's also a very old RFC 2731 on the subject. The even older paper
on embedding RDF within HTML is certainly worth a read for useful
background even today, although I'd hesitate to recommend its blind
acceptance.

If you're at the level of embedding DC in HTML, then chances are you'd
benefit from looking at PRISM too, maybe even the OAI work. There's
even some UK government rubbish (e-GMS) that you might be forced to
know about, although it's too broken to recommend unless it's mandatory
upon you.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

With our pedantic hats on, DCMI don't "specify" anything relating to
HTML and <meta> at all.

The DC web site publishes a document,
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/
whose status claims to be:

|| Status of Document: This is a DCMI Recommendation.

I'm not an expert in DCMI terminology, but I interpreted that as a
DCMI recommendation. Care to show me where I went wrong?

 

[Andy Dingley]

I'm not an expert in DCMI terminology, but I interpreted that as a
DCMI recommendation. Care to show me where I went wrong?

DCMI have a weirder attitude than W3C in terms of what they "recommend"
and how rigorous conformance to these recommendations is. When pushed,
they retrench on how much they claim to define, making DC1.0 qualifiers
less useful for interoperability than needed and DC 1.1 awkward indeed.

Use of DC, and use of DC within HTML, is certainly outside their remit.
It's simply not theirs to define. So follow their (good) advice on how
to do it, follow their equally good principles on how to achieve
interoperability, particularly the 1.0 "dumbing down" principle. Don't
however use the DC guidance as an absolute standard on "conformance"
when judging others' implementations. Any embedding of DC into HTML
that doesn't demonstrably break either of the separate standards is
perfectly "valid", even if it's at odds with this one specific
suggestion.

<h1 class="dc-title" >Foo</h1>
<h2 class="dc-subject" >Bar bat</h2>

is still a perfectly valid embedding of DC/HTML. In some contexts, it
might even be the best of all possible ones.