Re: [webcomponents] Rename custom tag (#434)

The only problem I have with "novel" is that it can easily bring a false
notion of innovation. If an author create a new element very similar to
what another author created in the past, it's not an innovation yet it is
still new. Same goes with original, fresh, etc sadly so maybe it's
unavoidable. I tend to prefer more neutral terms myself. Now I can surely
understand Anne's concerns about the ambiguity with creation of the actual
object.

"extended builtin" does sound like a mouthful to me. Is that supposed to
include elements that are derived from other custom elements? Like an
author creating a customization of another author's new/novel element? Or
is it specific to extending builtins?

Anyway, I don't wanna block anything, I just felt like sharing my thoughts
and give some feedback.

On 14 March 2016 at 19:13, Domenic Denicola <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> "Novel" seems to capture the fact that these are novel element definitions
> not in the HTML Standard better than "specialized". And as I said, "custom
> named element" is not great since the name is not really what we should be
> emphasizing; it's the whole element that's custom.
>
> I think it's important to have nice simple terms to refer to common
> concepts. That actually increases the spec's accessibility to new readers.
> Instead of forcing them to be reminded of minutiae like the definition of
> local name every time we reference something, they can simply sum up that
> behavior in their brain by labeling it "novel element".
>
> I'm hoping this is not some kind of blocking issue so I plan to make the
> change later today after a couple meetings. I'm still willing to accept a
> synonym for novel if there are patent concerns. Looking through
> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/novel?s=t, "original" seems OK, although
> maybe people would convince it with "the original list of elements already
> in the HTML Standard." Novel still seems best.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/434#issuecomment-196450036>.
>


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/434#issuecomment-196459364