- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:56:38 +0100
- To: "'Dave Cramer'" <dauwhe@gmail.com>, "'Brian Kardell'" <bkardell@gmail.com>
- CC: "'Rossen Atanassov'" <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, <public-wtf@w3.org>
± > I'd like to suggest something completely different while we have 1000 ± > options on the table. Instead of YASUA (Yet another stupid ± > unpronounceable ± > acronym) which we will bikeshed meanings about for all eternity, let's ± > just give it an abstract code-name - there's a rich history of doing ± > this in software (and in standards - HTML 3.2 was code named "Wilbur" ± > and the next was named "Cougar"). ± > ± > Let's just call it "Project Houdini". Houdini was an illusionist, not ± > a magician. He was a great explainer of anything claiming to be ± > 'magic' and belonged to a Scientific American committee which publicly ± > offered a prize to anyone who could demonstrate something ± > supernatural. The aim of this task force, I think, is to somehow (in ± > the words of the Extensible Web ± > Manifesto) explain (and expose) the underlying magic of the platform ± > and allow extensibility in the one place in the platform which has ± > been historically a little hostile to such ideas. ± > ± ± Even better, Houdini escaped from boxes. So yes, this is a great idea. I like the idea, too. It has the advantage of being open to interpretation and therefore makes it easy to repurpose as the group shapes itself over time. While "Houdini.org" is obviously taken, "houdini-boxes.org", "houdini-css.org" and "houdini-style.org" are all free and look nice to me. That being said I don't mind EXTF at all (but it looks slightly too general, we could almost believe it's actually the Extensible Web Task Force).
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 17:57:16 UTC