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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JanMar/0742.html > > 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