Re: [widget] technology/specification name
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. 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 :) 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! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com 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
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote: One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements. I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting. Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
RE: [widget] technology/specification name
The problem with widgets is that the name conflicts (or is a bit different angle) with the UI widgets (or controls) that are also in use (e.g. wxWidgets, GTK widgets etc.). We could invent some other name (WAF, WebApplicationPackaging etc. as people quote already), but ... On the other hand many people already talk W3C widgets. W3C widgets as the spec name is used in many other specs, not only W3C ones. Thus I suggest keeping the name as it is. Changing it now could confuse the industry even more and will not help, I think. BTW: There are also NetFront Widgets :) Thanks, Marcin -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wilson Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:18 PM To: Dave Raggett Cc: Karl Dubost; public-webapps@w3.org; Bruce Lawson Subject: Re: [widget] technology/specification name Part of the issue is that its a fairly generic technology that can be applied to areas including: - Browser extensions - Installable web apps - Desktop widgets - Site gadgets - TV/STB widgets - Mobile webapps I think the name widgets came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). Personally I don't think its all that bad as a name, but I don't feel especially attached to it either. If there is a better option, lets go for it. On the other hand, if there are barriers to adoption other than branding, lets address them. Unfortunately, I suspect a fair amount of it is just NIH syndrome. S On 23 Jun 2011, at 17:26, Dave Raggett wrote: In the webinos project [1] we are using installed vs hosted web apps. On 23/06/11 15:58, Karl Dubost wrote: I do not want to start a name bikeshedding. The name doesn't bother me so far, but I have seen that comment again and again. On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:24 GMT In Bruce Lawson's personal site : Installable web apps and interoperability At http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/installable-web-apps-and-interoperabilit y/ Installable apps (in W3C parlance, Widgets - which is a terrible name) allow authors to write apps using HTML(5), CSS, JavaScript, SVG etc, and package them up into a glorified Zip file with some configuration details which can then be installed on a computer. It seems that extensions or addons would be more cognitively connected with Web developers. y'know, so terrible is the W3C Widgets name that I didn't even think it referred to the same thing as Chrome's apps, et al. - http://twitter.com/nevali/status/83866541388603392 [1] http://webinos.org/ -- Dave Raggettd...@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote: One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements. I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting. Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps. Agreed. I'd couple that with the short-hand term 'web package'.
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Rich Tibbett ri...@opera.com wrote: Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote: One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements. I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting. Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps. Agreed. I'd couple that with the short-hand term 'web package'. We would just be changing the title of the documents. It's not like we are changing the widget element or the widget interface. This is just a repaint of the bikeshed from off white to mother of perl. I think this is probably the 1000th time we have had this naming discussion over the last 5 years. Hopefully, if we do change stuff as we go to REC, it will be the last. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
On Jun/24/2011 4:50 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote: Changing it now could confuse the industry even more and will not help, I think. Agreed, and in the abscence of any new and overwhelmingly compelling new information, I will object to any name change. -AB
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
On 24 Jun 2011, at 10:41, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Rich Tibbett ri...@opera.com wrote: Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote: One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements. I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting. Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps. Agreed. I'd couple that with the short-hand term 'web package'. We would just be changing the title of the documents. It's not like we are changing the widget element or the widget interface. This is just a repaint of the bikeshed from off white to mother of perl. I think this is probably the 1000th time we have had this naming discussion over the last 5 years. Hopefully, if we do change stuff as we go to REC, it will be the last. OK, that sounds a bit confusing. Rather than change the Widgets: PC spec, how about create a new Note on Packaged Web Apps that references the W3C Widgets family of specifications as the recommended set of specifications for realizing the various packaged web app UCs? That way we can talk about W3C Packaged Web Apps without invalidating any references to the individual Widget specifications. (This is sort of like sticking a mother-of-pearl facade onto the front of the bikeshed rather than repainting it) -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 Jun 2011, at 10:41, Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Rich Tibbett ri...@opera.com wrote: Marcos Caceres wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Charles Pritchardch...@jumis.com wrote: One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements. I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting. Lets just change it to Packaged Web Apps. Agreed. I'd couple that with the short-hand term 'web package'. We would just be changing the title of the documents. It's not like we are changing the widget element or the widget interface. This is just a repaint of the bikeshed from off white to mother of perl. I think this is probably the 1000th time we have had this naming discussion over the last 5 years. Hopefully, if we do change stuff as we go to REC, it will be the last. OK, that sounds a bit confusing. Rather than change the Widgets: PC spec, how about create a new Note on Packaged Web Apps that references the W3C Widgets family of specifications as the recommended set of specifications for realizing the various packaged web app UCs? That way we can talk about W3C Packaged Web Apps without invalidating any references to the individual Widget specifications. (This is sort of like sticking a mother-of-pearl facade onto the front of the bikeshed rather than repainting it) That WFM. We always talked about doing a preface architecture document that explained how all the bits work together (we can probably take some text from the old Landscape doc). I don't see it being more than a page or two. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
In the webinos project [1] we are using installed vs hosted web apps. On 23/06/11 15:58, Karl Dubost wrote: I do not want to start a name bikeshedding. The name doesn't bother me so far, but I have seen that comment again and again. On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:24 GMT In Bruce Lawson’s personal site : Installable web apps and interoperability At http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/installable-web-apps-and-interoperability/ Installable apps (in W3C parlance, Widgets – which is a terrible name) allow authors to write apps using HTML(5), CSS, JavaScript, SVG etc, and package them up into a glorified Zip file with some configuration details which can then be installed on a computer. It seems that extensions or addons would be more cognitively connected with Web developers. y'know, so terrible is the W3C “Widgets” name that I didn't even think it referred to the same thing as Chrome’s apps, et al. — http://twitter.com/nevali/status/83866541388603392 [1] http://webinos.org/ -- Dave Raggettd...@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
Part of the issue is that its a fairly generic technology that can be applied to areas including: - Browser extensions - Installable web apps - Desktop widgets - Site gadgets - TV/STB widgets - Mobile webapps I think the name widgets came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). Personally I don't think its all that bad as a name, but I don't feel especially attached to it either. If there is a better option, lets go for it. On the other hand, if there are barriers to adoption other than branding, lets address them. Unfortunately, I suspect a fair amount of it is just NIH syndrome. S On 23 Jun 2011, at 17:26, Dave Raggett wrote: In the webinos project [1] we are using installed vs hosted web apps. On 23/06/11 15:58, Karl Dubost wrote: I do not want to start a name bikeshedding. The name doesn't bother me so far, but I have seen that comment again and again. On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:24 GMT In Bruce Lawson’s personal site : Installable web apps and interoperability At http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/installable-web-apps-and-interoperability/ Installable apps (in W3C parlance, Widgets – which is a terrible name) allow authors to write apps using HTML(5), CSS, JavaScript, SVG etc, and package them up into a glorified Zip file with some configuration details which can then be installed on a computer. It seems that extensions or addons would be more cognitively connected with Web developers. y'know, so terrible is the W3C “Widgets” name that I didn't even think it referred to the same thing as Chrome’s apps, et al. — http://twitter.com/nevali/status/83866541388603392 [1] http://webinos.org/ -- Dave Raggettd...@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Re: [widget] technology/specification name
One issue which comes up is that widget is also used in ARIA to describe ui elements. I suspect we'll see apps used ubiquitously; widget seems to e reserved to early experiments in linked apps; apps via iframe. Like many on this thread, I don't have a strong objection against the name. I rather appreciate the thread, it's bringing out more distinctions as to what we're talking about and targeting. -Charles On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote: Part of the issue is that its a fairly generic technology that can be applied to areas including: - Browser extensions - Installable web apps - Desktop widgets - Site gadgets - TV/STB widgets - Mobile webapps I think the name widgets came from the heritage of Opera Widgets, Nokia Widgets, Apple Dashboard Widgets (etc). Personally I don't think its all that bad as a name, but I don't feel especially attached to it either. If there is a better option, lets go for it. On the other hand, if there are barriers to adoption other than branding, lets address them. Unfortunately, I suspect a fair amount of it is just NIH syndrome. S On 23 Jun 2011, at 17:26, Dave Raggett wrote: In the webinos project [1] we are using installed vs hosted web apps. On 23/06/11 15:58, Karl Dubost wrote: I do not want to start a name bikeshedding. The name doesn't bother me so far, but I have seen that comment again and again. On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:06:24 GMT In Bruce Lawson’s personal site : Installable web apps and interoperability At http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/installable-web-apps-and-interoperability/ Installable apps (in W3C parlance, Widgets – which is a terrible name) allow authors to write apps using HTML(5), CSS, JavaScript, SVG etc, and package them up into a glorified Zip file with some configuration details which can then be installed on a computer. It seems that extensions or addons would be more cognitively connected with Web developers. y'know, so terrible is the W3C “Widgets” name that I didn't even think it referred to the same thing as Chrome’s apps, et al. — http://twitter.com/nevali/status/83866541388603392 [1] http://webinos.org/ -- Dave Raggettd...@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
