Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

On Mar 27, 2013 2:27 PM, "Scott Miles" <sjmiles@google.com> wrote:
>
> 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<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

This is why I suggested prototype.. It might be an arbitrary doc, but it's
intent really is to serve as kinda a way to get things you intend to insert
into your page may or not be components to the definition... I saw no
uptake, but that was the rationale: it's hard to not use widget or
component.