W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

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

From: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:45:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHnmYQ_noERfaSXSP0hdpfAYpyxMnG+2dyGx2Yxy4Ptg=SyvFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Philip Walton <philip@philipwalton.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Robert Ginda <rginda@chromium.org>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:

> 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.

To go on the record: I like link rel="component" and calling these

Initially I was confused too; I have heard people casually refer to custom
elements as "components." But it makes sense to treat these are discrete

Components are the units of reuse. Although they're not "atomic" they
should ideally be a usable unit which references all of its dependencies.

Custom elements are the units of instantiation. One component may contain
be comprised of many custom elements.

> 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

Email SLA <http://goto.google.com/dc-email-sla> •
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 05:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:59 UTC