- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:41:04 +0200
- To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com> wrote: > Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe >>> ui elements. >>> >>> I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to >>> early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. >>> >>> Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the >>> name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as >>> to what we're talking about and targeting. >>> >> >> Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps. >> > > Agreed. > > I'd couple that with the short-hand term 'web package'. We would just be changing the title of the documents. It's not like we are changing the <widget> element or the widget interface. This is just a repaint of the bikeshed from off white to mother of perl. I think this is probably the 1000th time we have had this naming discussion over the last 5 years. Hopefully, if we do change stuff as we go to REC, it will be the last. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 09:41:52 UTC