Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

Err, yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

I also like "import" or "imports."

This makes sense given that the rel attribute is described as defining the
relationship between the resource being loaded and the document (likely
outdated spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#adef-rel).


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Eric Bidelman <ericbidelman@google.com>wrote:

> My association for HTML links is <a>. Seems too confusing.
>
> FWIW, I conducted a small survey to see what the
> broader community's mental model of this is:
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/118075919496626375791/posts/3GYkmd4UqLC. Got
> about 42 responses; the top 3 being:
>
> 1. Web Import <link rel="import"> - 14 votes
> 2. Web Package <link rel="package"> - 6 votes
> 3. Web Include <link rel="include"> - 5 votes
>
> Do we foresee <link rel="??"> loading other types of resources in the
> future, not just ".html"? I like the idea of some sort of "import" or
> "include", especially seeing that
> other web developers are aligned with this lingo.
>
> My 0$.02
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The word "component" will be used as a synonym for a custom element.
>> Since this spec is designed to load various html resources that may include
>> custom element definitions, attaching the word component to this spec is
>> just confusing.
>>
>> We're loading html so rel="html" is most straightforward. The name of the
>> spec should be HTML links.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>