Re: [webcomponents]: First stab at the Web Components spec

Personally, I had no objection to rel="component". It's similar in usage to
rel="stylesheet" in the fact that it's descriptive of what you're linking

On the other hand, rel="include" is very broad. It could just as easily
apply to a stylesheet as a Web component, and may limit the usefulness of
the term if/when future rel values are introduced.

(p.s. I'm new to this list and haven't read through all the previous
discussions on Web components. Feel free to disregard this comment if I'm
rehashing old topics)

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <>wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Robert Ginda <> wrote:
>> rel="include" ?
> And "Inclusions" as the name? Or "HTML Inclusions"? This could work.
> Any objections or better names? Rob might just win this one.
> :DG<

Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 21:46:12 UTC