You (often) can copy a page title into a client (Google) and expect it to find the right resource. This is usually done with articles, etc.
Even your comment provides a perfect example - you didn't link to RFC 1736, but the text "Locators are human transcribable" is unique enough that the first Google result is correct.
So you didn't have to provide a URL to lead someone to this page, just 'enough' unique text for it to be findable.
Which is kind of amazing - and maybe not what the original RFC intended.
none of the result here are pointer to the source I've used
sure the content is the same, but the resource isn't, if anything this demonstrates how easy is to misled a user, directing him on a different resource thinking it's the same.
compare with stack overflow result:
https://i.imgur.com/maJi47G.png
luckily prominent sites get pushed on top of the result queue (had to cut it because it was submersed by advertisement) but the attack vector is evident.
So web was designed with using Google in mind? woot
You can type it into Google, though...
But on another note, it will be the day when your mother (or anyone else for that matter) types in 'www.walmart.com' and actually goes to 'www.target.com' (names taken from other examples that I've seen on Twitter).
I made a new webpage for my father, and my mother cannot open it, since google does not know about that and there are no links to it.
There is unfortunately a tax on stupidity, and in this day and age it is paid with one's personal data to multinationals.
so, about that
you can't copy a page title into a client and expect it to find the right resource, now, do you?accessing the URL is listed as one of the fundamental use case for them, and for good reasons, detailed elsewhere in the same rfc