launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[William Grant <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 12:01 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> 
> > У уто, 15. 09 2009. у 21:25 -0500, Deryck Hodge пише:
> >> Hi, all.
> >>
> >> Please see bug 429735[1] if you need the context that brings this
> >> question.  Am I reading the heading/title rules correctly on the
> >> wiki[2] that reverse bread crumbs are preferred in our page titles?
> >> This seems odd to me, if so.
> >>
> >> I realize it's trivial to override, so the question is more about our
> >> preference for the site.  Do we really want reverse breadcrumbs on
> >> almost every sub page?
> >
> > I'd say we do,
> 
> Agreed, and this was just discussed in the UI call.  Martin will be  
> following up with details, but the summary is that for consistency we  
> really want to use the same automated calculation of the <title> text,  
> and that for google-fu we want the reverse-breadcrumbs to be used.
> 
> What this likely means is that post-3.0 we'll remove the ability to  
> override <title> (though we'll still need a way to specify a <title>  
> for pages that have no breadcrumbs).
> 
> We acknowledge that the individual breadcrumb components for some page  
> is less than optimal though, so the solution really will be to  
> override your breadcrumb components to be more useful.  You should  
> already be able to do that.

I really don't like this decision. There are some parts of the
breadcrumbs that simply do not make sense reversed (eg. 'Ubuntu » 9.04'
makes sense, but '9.04 : Ubuntu' does not). I suspect that producing
guidelines for consistent unstructured titles is going to yield better,
more succinct, and less ugly results than always reversing breadcrumbs.
Sure, some of the manual titles are currently suboptimal, but it would
be easy enough to go through and fix them all.