- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:12:35 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2011, at 20:17 , Scott Wilson wrote: >> I think the name "widgets" came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). > > Actually it came from a massive bikeshed discussion some time in 2006 IIRC; if memory serves during a f2f hosted by AOL. > Ultimately, it did come from the landscape... and chats I had with Anne. I wanted to call it "Web Application Packaging Format" but Anne convinced me otherwise (he was the original spec editor). http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WAPF-REQ-20060821/ I now keep a note next to my desk to not take marketing advice, or other substances, from Anne van Kesteren :) >A lot of options were floated but as in all bikeshed discussions there was no winning argument, and the final name was the one supported by whoever was still standing after everyone else decided they didn't have the energy for such a discussion (I think it was Anne). It's one of the (many) discussions that make me wish W3C would put together a black box Bikeshed Coordination Group to which WGs would farm off such disagreements and the decisions of which would be final :) > Seems to reflect what is here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets/Overview.src.html?rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fhtml > Doug and I had suggested WRAP: Web Resource Application Packaging. I still think it's the best contender so long as Packaging for Interactive Multimedia Presentations remains off the table. Certainly beats Pouah! > I still think WRAP is CRAP :) Anyway, we are bikeshedding again... -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:13:23 UTC