Reviving this thread from the last message (not necessarily replying to
this one specifically)...
I am converting refuse-reject to xml2rfc. I have this:
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header -
it is only necessary if the full title is longer
than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="Sieve Extension: Reject">
Sieve Email Filtering: Reject Extension
</title>
I like Nigel's suggestion not to imply the functionality via the
possibly jargony extension name, but rather to state the purpose of the
extension in the title. This may result in long titles.
For example, "Sieve Email Filtering: Extensions for Message Rejection".
I think we should use both Nigel's and Kjetil's suggestions:
"Sieve Email Filtering: Extensions for Foo" on the front page.
"Sieve Extension: Foo" on top of each inner page.
Aaron
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 15:27 +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 11:13 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Nigel Swinson wrote:
RFC3894 Sieve Extension: Copying Without Side Effects. J. Degener.
October 2004. (Format: TXT=9018 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
I can change the title, but I think that:
SIEVE Email Filtering Extension: Notifications
is slightly more informative than:
SIEVE Email Filtering: Enotify Extension
(who would know that enotify is about notifications?)
Opinions?
I don't think it is necessary to use the capability string in the title,
cf. RFC 3894 above, but you need to write it differently so as not to
imply it, e.g. "Sieve Email Filtering: Extension for Notifications"
as previously stated, I prefer the title stays as "Sieve Extension:
Notifications".