W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > September 2008

Re: ACTION-831: Continue discussion of the title on the list (CT Guidelines; LC-2018)

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:50:32 +0200
Message-ID: <48D25CA8.6060008@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: Sean Patterson <SPatterson@Novarra.com>, public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

OK, trying to move this forward
(funnily enough, I have this feeling this could have the exact opposite 

To paraphrase Jo's words, because that's my new favorite hobby: "there 
are many many titles we could think of".

Following last call's discussion, let me try to narrow the list of 
choices to 3 (bags of) possibilities:

1. Content Transformation Proxies: Guidelines
2. Content Transformation Proxy Interoperability Guidelines
3. Web Browsing Content Transformation Proxies: Guidelines

I have the feeling that 3. is not completely English... The purpose is 
to narrow the scope to content intended for Web browsing.

- there is no way to to be complete in the title.
- "content transformation", "proxy" and "guidelines" must be in the title
- the fact that we're viewing CT-proxies from an external point of view 
should be in the title. "interoperability" is a bit obscure (and I'm not 
only mentioning that because I can't pronounce it ;-)). Plus the title 
could be abbreviated to CT-PIG, and that's probably not the acronym we 
want people to use when referring to the document.
- the fact that the scope of Content Transformation should be narrowed 
to Web Browsing could be further explained in the Abstract.

In short:
+1 to 1.
0 to 2. (meaning I'm opened to alternative ideas)
-1 to 3. (meaning I doubt we can find any cool alternative, but, well, 
I'd be happy to be proven wrong)


Jo Rabin wrote:
> Hmmm, the possibilities are nearly endless. Here is another one:
> Content Transformation Proxy Interoperability Guidelines
> (putting the focus on the Proxy and with the possibility of demoting the 
> stuff about origin servers to non-normative to lessen the appearance of 
> creating a profile of HTTP or creating a protocol)
> Jo
> On 10/09/2008 14:17, Francois Daoust wrote:
>> Thanks for this long list of choices, Sean.
>> About the long title in 10., I would even complete it with 
>> "communication", because what we're trying to achieve here is to 
>> define ways for Content Providers and Content Transformation Proxies 
>> to communicate with each other.
>> "Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies: Communication Guidelines for 
>> Content Providers and Content Transformation Proxies"
>> ... but I don't quite like the result. I'm merely mentioning it in 
>> case someone comes up with a better idea that captures the abstract 
>> more precisely.
>> That being said, I'd go for 12. as well, which also has the advantage 
>> of not changing the title too radically.
>> Francois.
>> Sean Patterson wrote:
>>> In LC-2018 it is suggested the title “Content Transformation 
>>> Guidelines” is too generic and uninitiated readers would really not 
>>> have any clue that the CT Guidelines refer to content transformation 
>>> using an HTTP proxy server for (typically) mobile devices.  I can see 
>>> the point and on the CT call on last Tuesday, the consensus seemed to 
>>> be that a more descriptive name would be nice if we could come up 
>>> with a good one.
>>> Here are some suggestions from LC-2018, from the teleconference, and 
>>> a few that I came up with:
>>> 1. Mobile Web Content Transformation (from LC-2018)
>>> 2. Content Transformation for Mobile Presentation (from LC-2018)
>>> 3. Content Adaptation Guidelines
>>> 4. Content Transformation by Proxies
>>> 5. Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies
>>> 6. Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies: Guidelines
>>> 7. Guidelines for Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies
>>> 8. Guidelines for Content Transformation Proxies
>>> 9. Content Transformation Orientation Guide
>>> 10. Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies:  Guidelines for Content 
>>> Providers and Operators of Content Transformation Proxies (in case we 
>>> want a really long title)
>>> 11. Guidelines for Operation of and Interaction with Content 
>>> Transformation Proxies
>>> 12. Content Transformation Proxies: Guidelines
>>> 13. Content Transformation by HTTP Proxies for Limited Browsers: 
>>> Guidelines
>>> In most of the above, we could also replace the word “proxies” with 
>>> “proxy servers”.
>>> In a previous call I remember that we discussed adding “mobile” to 
>>> the title and decided against it because the CT Guidelines did not 
>>> necessarily only have to apply to mobile devices.
>>> With the word “guidelines” there are several options: put it the 
>>> beginning of the title (e.g., 11), put it at the end (e.g., the 
>>> current title), make it a subtitle (e.g., 6), or just leave it off 
>>> altogether (e.g., 4).  There are lots of combinations that I haven’t 
>>> enumerated above.
>>> I think I’m partial to 8 or 12.  10 is really not that bad (although 
>>> others may disagree with me) if we want a more descriptive title.
>>> Sean
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 13:51:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:30 UTC