Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

Forgive me if I'm perseverating, but do you imagine 'component' that is
included to be generic HTML content, and maybe some scripts or some custom
elements?

I'm curious what is it you envision when you say 'component', to test my
previous assertion about this word.

Scott


On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Angelina Fabbro
<angelinafabbro@gmail.com>wrote:

> '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<
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>