Re: [DOM] Name

On 9/5/11 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:08:25 +0200, Charles Pritchard 
> <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>> I propose calling it "Web Core".
>> WC1 (Web Core version 1).
>
> It is a somewhat compelling idea, but I think we should keep "DOM" in 
> the name given that everything it builds on did too.
>
>
>> The "Web" semantic is popular, easy.
>
> All our specifications are about the web. "Web" is just the new "X" 
> (Extensible), not very useful.
>
>
I don't believe the "Document" semantic is as appropriate to web apps as 
it was in the 90s.

I understand that "everything is a document" is a popular opinion.

"X" has traditionally been used for markup language, as an abbreviation 
for XML.
The ML suffix is also popular, also used for XML documents.

DOMCore provides a base system for the interconnection of a 
heterogeneous network of objects, whether documents, scripting objects, 
user agents, or client/server machines. "Web" seems appropriate. 
Corresponding to the same "web platform" that Web IDL targets.

Otherwise stated: "Web Core" is the base system used to transfer Web IDL 
objects.

The DOM semantic is already overloaded.
Here's an example of how that semantic baggage requires disambiguation.

http://dev.w3.org/html5/postmsg/
"The term DOM is used to refer to the API set made available to scripts 
in Web applications, and does not necessarily imply the existence of an 
actual Document object or of any other Node objects as defined in the 
DOM Core specifications"

In the references section, [DOMCORE] refers to "Web DOM Core".

That's two examples of the cost of maintaining the DOM semantic.

Messaging specifications would benefit, particularly that one:
The reference would be fixed to say "Web Core", [DOMEVENTS] and 
[DOMCORE] would be changed to [WEBCORE], "DOM events" to "Web Core 
Events", the terminology warning removed and [WEBCORE] added to 
dependencies.


-Charles

Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 16:51:02 UTC