RE: Need Agreement on Terminology

Another reason we need agreement:)

From: Ryosuke Niwa []
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 4:06 PM
To: Ben Peters
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger; White, Jason J;; Olli Pettay;;; Travis Leithead
Subject: Re: Need Agreement on Terminology

Somewhat relatedly, clipboard API specification started using the term "action" to refer to copy, paste, & cut:

On Nov 11, 2014, at 6:19 AM, Ben Peters <<>> wrote:

Thanks for your feedback everyone. I don't feel like we've landed on an answer yet. Those opposed to the word "Intentions" should speak up so we can finish this discussion and have consistent terminology going forward. Thanks!!

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger []
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 5:18 AM
To: White, Jason J
Cc: Ben Peters;<>; Olli Pettay;<>;<>; Ryosuke Niwa; Travis Leithead
Subject: RE: Need Agreement on Terminology

I agree. Intentional web events have been worked on in the W3C for years with no real successful delivery. These were there well before Android looked at "intentional" events and I believe Raman was involved with the Web intentional events effort from Google.

My recommendation is that we use the term and coordinate with the existing Web Events effort. There goal has been to produce intentional events anyway.

Part of the success of any technical effort is user consumption. When you say intentional events you immediately know what the objective of the work is much the same way that we know "Word" is a word processor.

We might shorten the name to "Intent" Events.


Rich Schwerdtfeger

<image001.gif>"White, Jason J" ---11/04/2014 04:29:46 PM--->-----Original Message----- >From: Ben Peters []

From: "White, Jason J" <<>>
To: Ben Peters <<>>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "<>" <<>>, Olli Pettay <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Ryosuke Niwa <<>>, Travis Leithead <<>>
Date: 11/04/2014 04:29 PM
Subject: RE: Need Agreement on Terminology


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Peters []
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 3:51 PM
>Two reasons some people don't like "Intentions":

Neither of them is a good reason to avoid the term, though. I don't think confusion is likely because "intention event" is a unique phrase which can have a defined meaning in the context of specifications. The description also seems apt: what these events capture is the user's intention or purpose in performing the action that causes the events to be dispatched.

Any proposed terminology will have its detractors. It is important to define it clearly and use it consistently.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 00:07:33 UTC