«

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

terry wrote:

> 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.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, David Dorward wrote:

> > <TITLE></TITLE>
^^ 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/stru...l.html#h-7.4.2

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

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, David Dorward wrote:
>
>>> <TITLE></TITLE>
> ^^ 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/stru...l.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

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, terry wrote:

> 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

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, terry wrote:
>
>> 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

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

Terry

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> 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?

--
Jim

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Jim Higson wrote:

> 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

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Jim Higson wrote:
>
>> 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/

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.

>> 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 wrote:
> 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

--
Dan