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

Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:02:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfc5QcrChE_ddfNFD_LKE7QReXjhVbx1Hu7+wy_Vf-B7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, seddon.ryan@gmail.com, ladicek@gmail.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>, Angelina Fabbro <angelinafabbro@gmail.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
On Mar 25, 2013 3:03 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" <dglazkov@google.com> 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

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