W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:58:29 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHnmYQ9cMzq1NTu+T-gkg8Hs6fFsV-4D2nSg7Fi+7f_njXFKug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>
Cc: Eric Bidelman <ericbidelman@google.com>, Angelina Fabbro <angelinafabbro@gmail.com>, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
"import" sounds good.

Dominic


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com> wrote:

> Err, yeah, thanks for pointing that out.
>
> I also like "import" or "imports."
>
> This makes sense given that the rel attribute is described as defining the
> relationship between the resource being loaded and the document (likely
> outdated spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#adef-rel).
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Eric Bidelman <ericbidelman@google.com>wrote:
>
>> My association for HTML links is <a>. Seems too confusing.
>>
>> FWIW, I conducted a small survey to see what the
>> broader community's mental model of this is:
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/118075919496626375791/posts/3GYkmd4UqLC. Got
>> about 42 responses; the top 3 being:
>>
>> 1. Web Import <link rel="import"> - 14 votes
>> 2. Web Package <link rel="package"> - 6 votes
>> 3. Web Include <link rel="include"> - 5 votes
>>
>> Do we foresee <link rel="??"> loading other types of resources in the
>> future, not just ".html"? I like the idea of some sort of "import" or
>> "include", especially seeing that
>> other web developers are aligned with this lingo.
>>
>> My 0$.02
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> The word "component" will be used as a synonym for a custom element.
>>> Since this spec is designed to load various html resources that may include
>>> custom element definitions, attaching the word component to this spec is
>>> just confusing.
>>>
>>> We're loading html so rel="html" is most straightforward. The name of
>>> the spec should be HTML links.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Angelina Fabbro <
>>> angelinafabbro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just going to drop this in here for discussion. Let's try and get at
>>>> what a just a component 'is':
>>>>
>>>> A gold-standard component:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should do one thing well
>>>> 2. Should contain all the necessary code to do that one thing (HTML,
>>>> JS, CSS)
>>>> 3. Should be modular (and thus reusable)
>>>> 4. Should be encapsulated
>>>> 5. (Bonus) Should be as small as it can be
>>>>
>>>> I think it follows, then, that a 'web component' is software that fits
>>>> all of these criteria, but for explicit use in the browser to build web
>>>> applications. The tools provided - shadow DOM, custom elements etc. give
>>>> developers tools to create web components. In the case of:
>>>>
>>>> <link rel="component" href="..">
>>>>
>>>> I would (as mentioned before) call this a 'component include' as I
>>>> think this description is pretty apt.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that widgets and components are synonymous, but that has
>>>> been that way for a couple of years now at least already. Widgets,
>>>> components, modules - they're all interchangeable depending on who you talk
>>>> to. We've stuck with 'components' to describe things so far. Let's not
>>>> worry about the synonyms. So far, the developers I've introduced to this
>>>> subject understood implicitly that they could build widgets with this
>>>> stuff, all the while I used the term 'components'.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> - A
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Forgive me if I'm perseverating, but do you imagine 'component' that
>>>>> is included to be generic HTML content, and maybe some scripts or some
>>>>> custom elements?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious what is it you envision when you say 'component', to test
>>>>> my previous assertion about this word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Angelina Fabbro <
>>>>> angelinafabbro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Component Include'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Component Include' describes what the markup is doing, and I like
>>>>>> that a lot. The syntax is similar to including a stylesheet or a script and
>>>>>> so this name should be evocative enough for even a novice to understand
>>>>>> what is implied by it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Angelina
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fwiw, my main concern is that for my team and for lots of other
>>>>>>> people I communicate with, 'component' is basically synonymous with 'custom
>>>>>>> element'. In that context, 'component' referring to
>>>>>>> chunk-of-web-resources-loaded-via-link is problematic, even if it's not
>>>>>>> wrong, per se.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We never complained about this before because Dimitri always wrote
>>>>>>> the examples as <link rel="components"...> (note the plural). When it was
>>>>>>> changed to <link rel="component"...> was when the rain began.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like the idea of "package" seems all encompassing which captures
>>>>>>>> the requirements nicely. That or perhaps "resource", but then resource
>>>>>>>> seems singular.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or perhaps "component-package" so it is obvious that it's tied to
>>>>>>>> web components?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Ryan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <
>>>>>>>> dglazkov@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello folks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the "Web
>>>>>>>>> Components" as the name for the <link rel=component> spec (cc'd
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> of the "feedbackers").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So... these malcontents are suggesting that "Web Components" is
>>>>>>>>> more a
>>>>>>>>> of a general name for all the cool things we're inventing, and
>>>>>>>>> <link
>>>>>>>>> rel=component> should be called something more specific, having to
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> with enabling modularity and facilitating component dependency
>>>>>>>>> management that it actually does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recognize the problem, but I don't have a good name. And I want
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> keep moving forward. So let's come up with a good one soon? As
>>>>>>>>> outlined in
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0742.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rules:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) must reflect the intent and convey the meaning.
>>>>>>>>> 2) link type and name of the spec must match.
>>>>>>>>> 3) no biting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> :DG<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Email SLA <http://goto.google.com/dc-email-sla> •
Google+<https://plus.sandbox.google.com/111762620242974506845/posts>
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 05:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 28 March 2013 05:58:58 UTC