ISSUE-300 A rose by any other name

[Jo Rabin-2]

(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-4]

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

[Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich-2]

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@...]
> 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
>
>