On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Looking at the use cases and the problems the current XBL2 spec is
> trying address, I think it might be a good idea to rename it into
> something that is less legacy-bound? Hixie already cleverly disguised
> the "X" as [X]engamous in the latest draft, and if this spec is to
> become part of HTML, it probably should lose an 'L'. As for 'B',
> describing what XBL2 aims to do as 'bindings' ain't super-accurate.
>
> The way I look at it, the problems we're trying to solve are:
>
> a) templating -- for astoundingly fast creation of DOM chunks using
> declarative syntax;
> b) shadow DOM -- for maximum-pleasure encapsulation and leak-free
> component abstraction of DOM chunks;
> c) binding -- for joy-filled extension and decoration DOM elements.
>
> Describing all these as just "Binding" just feels wrong. "Web
> Components" perhaps or something along these lines?
>
> Who's with me? :)
I'm partial to "Web Component Model". This lends a good name to the
things that use it ("components"), and is pretty clear I think.
~TJ
