On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Robin Berjon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2011, at 20:17 , Scott Wilson wrote: >> I think the name "widgets" came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia >> Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). > > Actually it came from a massive bikeshed discussion some time in 2006 IIRC; > if memory serves during a f2f hosted by AOL. >
Ultimately, it did come from the landscape... and chats I had with Anne. I wanted to call it "Web Application Packaging Format" but Anne convinced me otherwise (he was the original spec editor). http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WAPF-REQ-20060821/ I now keep a note next to my desk to not take marketing advice, or other substances, from Anne van Kesteren :) >A lot of options were floated but as in all bikeshed discussions there was no >winning argument, and the final name was the one supported by whoever was >still standing after everyone else decided they didn't have the energy for >such a discussion (I think it was Anne). It's one of the (many) discussions >that make me wish W3C would put together a black box Bikeshed Coordination >Group to which WGs would farm off such disagreements and the decisions of >which would be final :) > Seems to reflect what is here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets/Overview.src.html?rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fhtml > Doug and I had suggested WRAP: Web Resource Application Packaging. I still > think it's the best contender so long as Packaging for Interactive Multimedia > Presentations remains off the table. Certainly beats Pouah! > I still think WRAP is CRAP :) Anyway, we are bikeshedding again... -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
