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: Sean Patterson <SPatterson@Novarra.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:15:28 -0500
Message-ID: <24889886D84B794A9259323D7354CF330722C1B6@novarrainet2.internalnt.novarra.com>
To: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

I've already gone on record as supporting number 1.  As Heiko brought
up, number 2 sounds too much like a document that defines guidelines for
CT proxies to talk to each other, so I think that rules it out.  (Also,
I totally forgot about the unflattering acronym angle.)  As for 3, I
like the idea of getting the word "Web" in there somewhere, but I
couldn't really come up with a good title.  Examples:

Content Transforming Web Proxies: Guidelines
Content Transformation: Guidelines for Web Proxies
Guidelines for Content Transformation Proxies for the Web
Content Transformation for the Web: Guidelines for Proxies
Content Transformation Guidelines for Web Proxies: The Untold Story
Content Transformation: Guidelines for Proxies (doesn't have "web" in
it)
Content Transformation for Dummies (by Dan Appelquist)
Content Transformation Proxies: Guidelines for the Web
Web Content Transformation: Guidelines for Proxies

I guess the second one is OK; I'm not sure if I like any of the others.

Sean


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:51 AM
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: Sean Patterson; public-bpwg-ct
> Subject: Re: ACTION-831: Continue discussion of the title on the list
(CT
> Guidelines; LC-2018)
> 
> OK, trying to move this forward
> (funnily enough, I have this feeling this could have the exact
opposite
> effect...)
> 
> 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.
> 
> IMHO:
> - 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)
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> 
> 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 21:16:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 September 2008 21:16:10 GMT