RE: [widget] technology/specification name

The problem with widgets is that the name conflicts (or is a bit different
angle) with the UI widgets (or controls) that are also in use (e.g.
wxWidgets, GTK widgets etc.). We could invent some other name (WAF,
WebApplicationPackaging etc. as people quote already), but ...

On the other hand many people already "talk W3C widgets". W3C widgets as
the spec name is used in many other specs, not only W3C ones.

Thus I suggest keeping the name as it is. Changing it now could confuse
the industry even more and will not help, I think.

BTW: There are also NetFront Widgets :)


-----Original Message-----
From: []
On Behalf Of Scott Wilson
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:18 PM
To: Dave Raggett
Cc: Karl Dubost;; Bruce Lawson
Subject: Re: [widget] technology/specification name

Part of the issue is that its a fairly generic technology that can be
applied to areas including:

- Browser extensions
- Installable web apps
- Desktop widgets
- Site gadgets
- TV/STB widgets
- Mobile webapps

I think the name "widgets" came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia
Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). Personally I don't think its all
that bad as a name, but I don't feel especially attached to it either. If
there is a better option, lets go for it.

On the other hand, if there are barriers to adoption other than branding,
lets address them. Unfortunately, I suspect a fair amount of it is just
NIH syndrome.


On 23 Jun 2011, at 17:26, Dave Raggett wrote:

> In the webinos project [1] we are using installed vs hosted web apps.
> On 23/06/11 15:58, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> I do not want to start a name bikeshedding.
>> The name doesn't bother me so far, but I have seen that comment again
and again.
>>     On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:24 GMT
>>     In Bruce Lawson's personal site : Installable web apps and
>>     At
>>     Installable apps (in W3C parlance, Widgets - which
>>     is a terrible name) allow authors to write apps
>>     using HTML(5), CSS, JavaScript, SVG etc, and
>>     package them up into a glorified Zip file with
>>     some configuration details which can then be
>>     installed on a computer.
>> It seems that "extensions" or "addons" would be more cognitively
connected with Web developers.
>>     y'know, so terrible is the W3C "Widgets" name
>>     that I didn't even think it referred to the
>>     same thing as Chrome's apps, et al.
>>     -
> [1]
> --
> Dave Raggett<>

Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 08:50:57 UTC