[Bug 24087] [Custom]: Rename document.register to registerElement

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24087

--- Comment #9 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> ---
(In reply to Dimitri Glazkov from comment #7)
> (In reply to Maciej Stachowiak from comment #3)
> > Reopening to reconsider defineElement.
> 
> Please don't rename the bug that already has a commit on it. Makes difficult
> to figure out what's happening.

What do you think is the correct process if I disagree with the way in which a
bug was resolved, or think it has inadequate rationale? It seems like reopening
it without renaming would be confusing, and filing a new bug would also be
confusing. But I'm happy to follow whichever is the preferred process.

> 
> The "element registration is a process of adding an element definition to a
> registry":
> http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/custom/#dfn-element-registration 
> 
> On the other hand, "Defining an element" (or defineElement) would be the act
> of constructing a definition, which doesn't quite hit the spot.

Two counters:

(1) "Registry" is not a user-exposed concept. A component implementor should
not have to think about the fact that the implementation may internally have a
registry. API names should not expose purely internal concepts.

(2) Let's say you have a definition for a word in English. You want to add that
definition to a dictionary. We would tend call that "defining a word", not
"registering a word definition" in normal English. In other words, "define" is
the verb that means "associate a definition with the term it defines". It is
true that a definition can exist in free-standing form, without yet being bound
to a term. But at that point it's not defining anything yet.

Maybe we should take this back to public-webapps? I wish you had commented on
the original thread that you disagreed with the arguments given for
defineElement. It is dispiriting to give detailed feedback and then have a bug
resolved without directly addressing it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 04:30:51 UTC