- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 01:16:16 +0100
- To: QA-dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote: >IMHO [WMVS] is an obscure acronym that shouldn't be inflicted on users. >Surely we can come up with a better scheme for document titles? Eg. >something like: > >Validation results for $URL - W3C Markup Validation Service Hmmm. Well, it was picked with <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980906.html> in mind, for whatever that may be worth. The word «Validation» eats up too many characters — and anything after the URL will be lost — so «[WMVS]» attempts to cover the function of both. It's a common prefix to identify this as a page from v.w3.org (think along the lines of a “favicon”) and implies the «Validation» bit; accomplishing in six characters what spelling it out takes 38 characters to do. Apart from identification, the key message to communicate is that these are the «Results for <URL>»… …hence the above. >BTW, the above change seems to apply to the feedback page too (not that >it would have been any more correct earlier either): >http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/feedback.html Hmm, yes. I'd forgot that the feedback page now moonlights as a CGI. - -- I have to admit that I'm hoping the current situation with regard to XML Namespaces and W3C XML Schemas is a giant practical joke, but I see no signs of pranksters coming forward with a gleeful smile to announce that they were just kidding. -- Simon St.Laurent -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 iQA/AwUBQgQQUKPyPrIkdfXsEQI81gCfddaYo7RLzn2oE8JBo4BlqKNxQ8gAoK7b 3HX0GFakyK1Nlc/9GIwkNVK7 =Zcfo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2005 00:16:20 UTC