Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

I like the idea of "package" seems all encompassing which captures the
requirements nicely. That or perhaps "resource", but then resource seems
singular.

Or perhaps "component-package" so it is obvious that it's tied to web
components?

-Ryan


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, 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<
>