The interface chosen for checklist is problematical. First, it's opaque. It's not at all obvious what following some of the links will do. Further, that they take any action at all - instead of just fetching a page - violates the HTTP specification. For a private application that only I can access, this is acceptable. For public applications, it is not.
Being opaque is my personal taste. I find this representation to be nice and compact:
200: The title of this document used to be (But it should now be)
Further, it lets me use popular browsers to start a process making a change in a separate window while I continue perusing the list. A less opaque alternative would be to list the description, the possible problems, and provide buttons to change & delete them:
This solves both the problems. It now follows spec, in that the links use POST instead of GET, and it's less opaque. It could be made better by making the Change button say Change title to to differentiate it from the version that changes the URL. However, it's longer - and changing the Change button would make that worse. I think it's uglier, and the Delete button seems clunky where it is, but there doesn't seem to be a better place for it.
I tried using a table, but forms and tables don't get along well. In particular, forms must either appear inside a TH or TD, or contain the entire table. This application needs to set the id of the document differently for each row, which means either 1) making each row a single form (which violates the spec), or 2) putting in a checkbox for each url for deleting it, another next to those that change, and then having a single button to make all those changes - which strikes me as rather clumsy when compared to the current page.
As a final alternative, the first version could be made legal by making the two links that make changes submit buttons, like so:
This is not only extremely ugly, but the actions must happen in this window, and cannot be started in a new window.
If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to present this interface, I'd love to hear it. Note that such a suggestion must not use HTML that validates according to the strict HTML 4.0 DTD. It would also be nice if it didn't violate the HTTP spec like my current version does.