W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [widget] technology/specification name

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:50:11 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Za2vPjUg6aVgicrtPAUj1snLYJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Cc: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.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 12:44 PM, Scott Wilson
<scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2011, at 10:41, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> OK, that sounds a bit confusing.
>
> Rather than change the Widgets: P&C spec, how about create a new Note on "Packaged Web Apps" that references the W3C Widgets family of specifications as the recommended set of specifications for realizing the various "packaged web app" UCs?
>
> That way we can talk about "W3C Packaged Web Apps" without invalidating any references to the individual Widget specifications.
>
> (This is sort of like sticking a mother-of-pearl facade onto the front of the bikeshed rather than repainting it)

That WFM. We always talked about doing a preface architecture document
that explained how all the bits work together (we can probably take
some text from the old Landscape doc). I don't see it being more than
a page or two.


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 10:50:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT