W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:52:53 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimaF16hMQJ_RrmtU5MSvWmU=ykNHfTCvZBzyUg5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Looking at the use cases and the problems the current XBL2 spec is
> trying address, I think it might be a good idea to rename it into
> something that is less legacy-bound? Hixie already cleverly disguised
> the "X" as  [X]engamous in the latest draft, and if this spec is to
> become part of HTML, it probably should lose an 'L'. As for 'B',
> describing what XBL2 aims to do as 'bindings' ain't super-accurate.
> The way I look at it, the problems we're trying to solve are:
> a) templating --  for astoundingly fast creation of DOM chunks using
> declarative syntax;
> b) shadow DOM -- for maximum-pleasure encapsulation and leak-free
> component abstraction of DOM chunks;
> c) binding -- for joy-filled extension and decoration DOM elements.
> Describing all these as just "Binding" just feels wrong. "Web
> Components" perhaps or something along these lines?
> Who's with me? :)

I'm partial to "Web Component Model".  This lends a good name to the
things that use it ("components"), and is pretty clear I think.

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 21:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:28 UTC