- From: Jarred Nicholls <jarred@extjs.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:11:51 -0400
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Jacob Rossi <jrossi@microsoft.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 9/4/11 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 15:12:45 +0200, Arthur Barstow >> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: >>> The CfC to publish a new WD of DOM Core was blocked by this RfC. I >>> will proceed with a request to publish a new WD of DOM Core in TR/. >>> The name DOM Core will be used for the upcoming WD. If anyone wants >>> to propose a name change, please start a *new* thread. >> >> Given that the specification replaces most of DOM2 and DOM3 I suggest >> we name it DOM4, including for the upcoming WD (or alternatively a WD >> we publish a couple of weeks later). > > I propose calling it "Web Core". > WC1 (Web Core version 1). Without hesitation, I concur. +1 Jarred > > The "Web" semantic is popular, easy. > > The w3c lists are heavy with the "web" semantic: web apps, web > components, web events. > The primary dependency for DOMCore is named Web IDL. > > It'd give DOM3 some breathing room, to go down its own track. > > I'd much prefer to go around referring to Web IDL and Web Core. > > -Charles > >
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 13:07:33 UTC