>> 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/ >