On 16 Jul 2001, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Bijan" == Bijan Parsia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I think you need to put "page" and
> >> "site" in there somewhere to describe the scope of the changes.
> >> Maybe "page history" and "site changes"?
>
> Bijan> Recent changes at least has some history about it (i.e., many
> Bijan> Wiki's have such a feature, and call it something similar).
>
> See, that's my point.
I really hope not :)
> "changes" implies there's a history. "history"
> implies there have been "changes".
Except I meant, and even said (would've been clearer with some quotes),
that the *term* Recent Changes has some history, i.e., it's been used as
the name of the site feature. Denotational.
> They are synonyms.
No. Even mutual implication doesn't suffice for them to be synonyms. But
I'm not really arguing against you (I think). In any case, I suggested
"versions" and "recent changes" (or "changes"). While it's still ambiguous
whether it's site changes or page changes, at least it has the virtue of
*not* being synonyms and versions seems more closely tied to pages.
> The only real difference is whether it's about the entire site, or the
> page we're looking at. So "page" and "site" need to go into the title
> somewhere.
I agree that the difference is page site...but it's not clear that
"page" and "site" need to go into the title somewhere.
For example, "What's new" is ambiguous twixt what's new for the page and
for the site, but it's typically disambiguate in favor of the site.
All that's *really* needed is something sufficient 1) for you (and, I
hope, me) to remember easily :), and 2) that Je77 will put in ;)
That being said, maybe some sort of combined Changes: Site/Page. button
might work. (Maybe not :)).
Cheers,
Bijan.
