Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

The problem I'm trying to get at, is that while a 'custom element' has a
chance of meeting your 1-6 criterion, the thing on the other end of <link
rel='to-be-named'...> has no such qualifications. As designed, the target
of this link is basically arbitrary HTML.

This is why I'm struggling with <link rel='component' ..>.

Scott


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Angelina Fabbro
<angelinafabbro@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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,
> CSS)
> 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'.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - 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<
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>