Re: Shortened titles in Yelp

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Martijn van Beers wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 01:08:41AM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Martijn van Beers wrote:
> 
> > Its not a question of 'is able to'. The thing rendered is just a string
> > and it doesn't have a limit, really long ones just won't look nice
> 
> Doesn't look nice isn't an argument to go change a metadata format. And
> since you can't control every OMF file, you'll never get all of them to
> follow your definition of 'looks nice' anyway
> 

No. And I don't strive to control them - Merely being able to point people
at a way to 

> > and the
> > present titles contain information that is pretty useless to a user of the
> > desktop
> the original example 'problem' title is:
> 	GNOME Calculator Manual V2.0
> and the proposal is to shorten this to
> 	Calculator
> 
> I don't see any information in this that is pretty useless to a user of
> a linux desktop. He certainly would want to know this is the manual, and
> not the manpage document for the same application that happens to be on
> his system too. Nor does he want to miss that this is the gnome
> calculator, instead of the kde one that he has installed too.

He already knows this from the other metadata and presenattion. But good
point, we are missing categories for man pages. 

> 
> The only problematic bit about this title is the V2.0 bit. But that
> isn't redundant either, just unclear. What is version 2.0 here? Is it
> a new version of the manual, or does the manual describe a certain
> version of the gnome calculator?
> 

The V2.0 is redundant - it is in the version field. 

> > Hence the problem to be solved - how
> > do we make sure OMF files contain a title that help browser developers can
> > use without a fear of getting bugs files against them or confusing users.
> > The easiest way is to just put the short title in <title>...</title> and
> > put teh long one somewhere else (like the description field), but as
> > noted, that has its own drawbacks.
> 
> No, this is not the problem to be solved. OMF files contain metadata
> about a document. title is metadata. author is metadata. but
> title butchered up so that a certain obscure html renderer can display
> it according to certain people's aesthetic taste is definitely not.
> 

This looks like a really odd perspective - and after all, the 'what to put
in a title' is just the question of guidelines and the simplest solutionis
to only put te thing presently called 'short title' in the <title>. The
'problem' only every came to be one because people felt this was not the
best course. Thus teh easiest solution is to decide that the obscure html
renderer is more important that the claims about downsides to this
approach. 

> 
> Martijn
> 

	Sander

	This is the place where all
	the junkies go	
	where time gets fast
	but everything gets slow