Re: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby

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<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>