My issue is that the target of this link will not in general be an atomic thing like a 'component' or a 'module'. It's a carrier for resources and links to other resources. IMO this is one of the great strengths of this proposal. For this reason, when it was rel="components" (plural) there was no problem for me. Having said all that, I'm not particularly up in arms about this issue. The name will bend to the object in the fullness of time. :) S On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>wrote: > >> 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 to. >> >> 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) >> >> >> > +1, I like rel="component", document or include doesn't make sense. > > - E >
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 23:39:51 UTC