W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > October 2009

RE: ISSUE-300 A rose by any other name

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:02:21 +0200
Message-ID: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602EDCB9F7E@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "Public BPWG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi all,

Sorry I couldn't be on the call.  It has been rather difficult to make
time for this work.

I think the current title as well as any of the suggestions below would
work.

However, I would like to propose yet another variety which hopefully
encompasses a clarification regarding its non-normative nature,
preserving some snappiness and yet being explanatory enough.

I suggest the addition of a sub-title and avoiding using Evaluation in
the title.

Title:    "Extended Guideline for Mobile Web Best Practices"
Subtitle: "a non-normative companion document for Mobile Web Best
Practices"


-- Kai
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:04 AM
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: Public BPWG
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-300 A rose by any other name
> 
> I also promised to give this some more thought so let me do 
> so before I turn to other matters this morning.
> 
> Current name: Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices
> 
> Suggested alternatives:
> 
> 1 Extended Evaluations for Mobile Web Best Practices
> 2 Supplement to Mobile Web Best Practices
> 3 Clarification of Mobile Web Best Practices
> 4 Companion to Mobile Web Best Practices
> 5 Extended Evaluations and Interpretation of Mobile Web Best Practices
> 6 Mobile Web Best Practices: Beyond mobileOK Basic Tests
> 
> I like Jo's suggestion (1) however I think it deserves the 
> addition of 'interpretation' as well (5). I am aware that 
> this makes the title far from snappy however it does more 
> fully reflect the document's content since, well, we do 
> interpret some of the BPs, especially where they are applied 
> to more than one URI.
> 
> 2 - 4 are there to provide something snappy.
> 
> 6 is also meant to be more snappy and hint at progression 
> from mobileOK (which has always been the motivation for doing 
> this in the first place).
> 
> HTH
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> Jo Rabin wrote:
> > (Continuing our Shakespearian theme)
> > 
> > As reported by Francois yesterday [1], Philipp Hoschka has 
> requested 
> > that we reconsider the name of the Addendum to BP1 also 
> known as BP1.5 
> > also known as mobileOK Pro etc.
> > 
> > Philipp thinks that it sounds too much like we are adding 
> normatively 
> > to
> > BP1 whereas we are not.
> > 
> > On yesterday's call the gentleman from Suffolk suggested 
> "Supplement" 
> > Eduardo suggested Clarification.
> > 
> > I'm tempted to go for "Extended Evaluations for Mobile Web Best 
> > Practices". Any takers? Any other suggestions?
> > 
> > Jo
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html#item04
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Mobile Web Initiative
> http://www.w3.org/Mobile
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 10:02:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 October 2009 10:02:58 GMT