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

Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

From: Angelina Fabbro <angelinafabbro@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:46:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG57-HOJ7u=cN+xwT+LDgo0fJHCrUyOCJS9F4rm79hqyKm5f4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>
Cc: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
'Component Include'

'Component Include' describes what the markup is doing, and I like that a
lot. The syntax is similar to including a stylesheet or a script and so
this name should be evocative enough for even a novice to understand what
is implied by it.

- Angelina

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:

> Fwiw, my main concern is that for my team and for lots of other people I
> communicate with, 'component' is basically synonymous with 'custom
> element'. In that context, 'component' referring to
> chunk-of-web-resources-loaded-via-link is problematic, even if it's not
> wrong, per se.
> We never complained about this before because Dimitri always wrote the
> examples as <link rel="components"...> (note the plural). When it was
> changed to <link rel="component"...> was when the rain began.
> Scott
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>wrote:
>> 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<
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 05:47:05 UTC

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