- From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:25:45 -0800
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I like Web Components. -- Dirk On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > How 'bouts a shorter version of Tab's suggestion: "Web Components" ? > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:51:39 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:24 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >>>> >>>> Looking at the use cases and the problems the current XBL2 spec is >>>> trying address, I think it might be a good idea to rename it into >>>> something that is less legacy-bound? >>> >>> I strongly object. We have a long and proud tradition of perfectly >>> horrible and meaningless names such as XMLHttpRequest. I don't see why we'd >>> ever have to change. >>> >>> Shadow HTML Anonymous DOm for the Web! >> >> Cause I know you are being serious I will be serious as well and point out >> that XMLHttpRequest's name is legacy bound as that is what implementations >> call it and applications are using. XBL2 has none of that. >> >> >> -- >> Anne van Kesteren >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 00:26:17 UTC