W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [widget] technology/specification name

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:41:04 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=DR7Zbvm4ZUMD36uq_r8MK8W5eBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com> wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com>
>>  wrote:
>>> One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe
>>> ui elements.
>>> I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to
>>> early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe.
>>> Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the
>>> name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as
>>> to what we're talking about and targeting.
>> Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps.
> Agreed.
> I'd couple that with the short-hand term 'web package'.

We would just be changing the title of the documents.
It's not like we are changing the <widget> element or the widget
interface. This is just a repaint of the bikeshed from off white to
mother of perl.

I think this is probably the 1000th time we have had this naming
discussion over the last 5 years. Hopefully, if we do change stuff as
we go to REC, it will be the last.

Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 09:41:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:20 UTC