On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Ryan Sleevi sle...@google.com wrote:
[...] All
the forms except for decimal octets are seen as non-standard (despite
being quite widely interoperable) and undesirable.
They are no longer non-standard, though still non-conforming. Or, in
other words,
I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website
title/logo/branding as shown in-page.
I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside
head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site
you're not familiar with via search results,
I agree that the title/banner/logo element doesn't add much value. I don't
feel like a tag to canonically declare the website name would add much
value either - isn't that what the domain is for? Also the tag wouldn't be
very trustworthy - the domain is less easy to lie about.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015
Hi all:
There was mentioned logo as a descendant element of the sectioning
header element, just as an idea to solve the needs of the unacurate
use of the header element it seems it occurs in our daily use, with
the current spec.
I could imagine other semantic elements,as long as e undertand
The domain does not necessarily correspond to or have any relation to the
website name. Furthermore, the domain is not necessarily readable language
- how does a screen reader know how to pronounce alistapart.com? It could
just as well read Ali's Tap Art.
You're right that it could have some
Pontus, you are right noticing the domain HAD or HAS nothing to do
necessarily, and the idea exposed before here in this thread was just
this, _an idea_. a WILL or a MIGHT.
Just keep in mind these _gTLD_ are new -- we would have not imagine
years ago, one will have to deal with specific
