- From: Sean Patterson <SPatterson@Novarra.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:22:06 -0500
- To: "public-bpwg-ct" <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <24889886D84B794A9259323D7354CF330707BDED@novarrainet2.internalnt.novarra.com>
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 Monday, 8 September 2008 19:22:55 UTC