Alex Faaborg skrev:
They imply opening or saving a completely separate document/file
The interface model doesn't necessarily have to actually match the
implementation model, but yeah, I'm still not a huge fan of the
attachments idea.
"Pointers" for: http://tinyurl.com/278y8g
"Hyperlayers" for: http://tinyurl.com/26mqf3
(or "layers" for short)
Those names sound very catchy - but in my ears perhaps a bit too much
like something coming from a classic PR-campaign. At least "Hyperlayers"
- image an ad with the text "Increase your productivity with the all new
Firefox 3 now with hyperlayers". Very cool - but does it actually tell
us something?
Can't it be kept simple? Does it have to be a new name - couldn't it
rather be a description of an action - like data extraction? (Don't know
if thats the right spelling though)
That would tell what it does and it would be less PR-like and more
"honest"(?) - it's just plain simply describing what this new thing does
and that's what I think is most important. Keep it simple.
Both of those names have previously been shot down inside Mozilla,
ironically enough because some people felt that the interface-level
name should emerge out of the microformats community. In the past Web
browsers have lagged far enough behind the evolution of the Web that
names have already been established (like with Feeds).
Well - that is ironic :) Perhaps the "real" place for this would be
among the comments on a YouTube-movie featuring this in action or in
blogosphere? But that does however not stop us from having this
discussion...
/ Pelle
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
