W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [DOM] Name

From: Jarred Nicholls <jarred@extjs.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:11:51 -0400
Message-Id: <B93F7F09-64DA-455D-B615-891AAC3AA637@sencha.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

> On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow 
>> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>> The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I 
>>> will proceed with a  request to publish a new WD of DOM Core in TR/. 
>>> The name DOM Core will be used for the upcoming WD. If anyone wants 
>>> to propose a name change, please start a *new* thread.
>> 
>> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest 
>> we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD 
>> we publish a couple of weeks later).
> 
> I propose calling it "Web Core".
> WC1 (Web Core version 1).

Without hesitation, I concur.  +1

Jarred

> 
> The "Web" semantic is popular, easy.
> 
> The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web 
> components, web events.
> The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL.
> 
> It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track.
> 
> I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core.
> 
> -Charles
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 13:07:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT