On 6 Apr 2011, at 13:56, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 06/04/2011 13:44, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >> On 4/5/11 1:39 PM, "Scott Wilson"<[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > >> In my mind, widget is the most generic and well understood term for all >> types of gadgets/widgets. > > A widget [1] is not a gadget [2] (that's only one of quite a few possible > interpretations). In Apache Wookie this becomes a real problem as it can host > both widgets and gadgets transparently for the end user. We just about get > away with it in Wookie since it is not an end user tool, but Rave is. > > > What about keeping widget as the name rather > > than introducing a new term? > > I'd be OK with that, but not OK with Gadget (although not -1) > > However, today Gadget is the more recognised term, Perhaps Scott was just > trying to be polite and not force the Wookie related motivations - then again > maybe I'm completely wrong and Scott has another reason for his suggestion.
Well, more just trying to keep the distinction clear between "the thing Rave manages" and "the thing Shindig provides (OpenSocial Gadgets) or Wookie provides (W3C Widgets)". So Rave internally needs the concept of the object it manages on each page for which is gets the content from elsewhere. If nothing else the class name for these things in Java needs to make some sort of sense and connect with the user documentation "how to add a [thing] to you Rave page" etc. And usually in a CMS or portal these are indeed called "widgets" (or portlets). I'm happy with "widget" or "Rave widget" (note the lowercase 'w') as it does feel a little more neutral than "Gadget". However I'm pretty easy either way. (But its still mildly confusing, hence my slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion of "ravelet" :-) > > Ross > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ > [2] > http://www.opensocial.org/Technical-Resources/opensocial-spec-v09/Gadgets-API-Specification.html
