Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

On Mar 25, 2013 3:03 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" <> wrote:
> Hello folks!
> It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the "Web
> Components" as the name for the <link rel=component> spec (cc'd some
> of the "feedbackers").
> So... these malcontents are suggesting that "Web Components" is more a
> of a general name for all the cool things we're inventing, and <link
> rel=component> should be called something more specific, having to do
> with enabling modularity and facilitating component dependency
> management that it actually does.
> I recognize the problem, but I don't have a good name. And I want to
> keep moving forward. So let's come up with a good one soon? As
> outlined in
> Rules:
> 1) must reflect the intent and convey the meaning.
> 2) link type and name of the spec must match.
> 3) no biting.
> :DG<

I'm sure this is flawed and i will regret sharing it without more
consideration after it popped into my head - but what about something like
"prototype"?  Does that need explanation as to where i pulled that from or
is it obvious?

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 13:03:22 UTC