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: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG57-HN9CX45U4UJLmR-AgVvY_g2OJ_rM1QWVSBPZgVKRoNyMg@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>
Just going to drop this in here for discussion. Let's try and get at what a
just a component 'is':

A gold-standard component:

1. Should do one thing well
2. Should contain all the necessary code to do that one thing (HTML, JS,
3. Should be modular (and thus reusable)
4. Should be encapsulated
5. (Bonus) Should be as small as it can be

I think it follows, then, that a 'web component' is software that fits all
of these criteria, but for explicit use in the browser to build web
applications. The tools provided - shadow DOM, custom elements etc. give
developers tools to create web components. In the case of:

<link rel="component" href="..">

I would (as mentioned before) call this a 'component include' as I think
this description is pretty apt.

It is true that widgets and components are synonymous, but that has been
that way for a couple of years now at least already. Widgets, components,
modules - they're all interchangeable depending on who you talk to. We've
stuck with 'components' to describe things so far. Let's not worry about
the synonyms. So far, the developers I've introduced to this subject
understood implicitly that they could build widgets with this stuff, all
the while I used the term 'components'.


- A

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:

> 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<
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2013 17:21:04 UTC

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