Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
I like Web Components. -- Dirk On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Alex Russell wrote: > How 'bouts a shorter version of Tab's suggestion: "Web Components" ? > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:51:39 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:24 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote: 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? >>> >>> I strongly object. We have a long and proud tradition of perfectly >>> horrible and meaningless names such as XMLHttpRequest. I don't see why we'd >>> ever have to change. >>> >>> Shadow HTML Anonymous DOm for the Web! >> >> Cause I know you are being serious I will be serious as well and point out >> that XMLHttpRequest's name is legacy bound as that is what implementations >> call it and applications are using. XBL2 has none of that. >> >> >> -- >> Anne van Kesteren >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >> >> > >
Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
How 'bouts a shorter version of Tab's suggestion: "Web Components" ? On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:51:39 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote: >> >> On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:24 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >>> >>> 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? >> >> I strongly object. We have a long and proud tradition of perfectly >> horrible and meaningless names such as XMLHttpRequest. I don't see why we'd >> ever have to change. >> >> Shadow HTML Anonymous DOm for the Web! > > Cause I know you are being serious I will be serious as well and point out > that XMLHttpRequest's name is legacy bound as that is what implementations > call it and applications are using. XBL2 has none of that. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > >
Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:51:39 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote: On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:24 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote: 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? I strongly object. We have a long and proud tradition of perfectly horrible and meaningless names such as XMLHttpRequest. I don't see why we'd ever have to change. Shadow HTML Anonymous DOm for the Web! Cause I know you are being serious I will be serious as well and point out that XMLHttpRequest's name is legacy bound as that is what implementations call it and applications are using. XBL2 has none of that. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:24 , Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > 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? I strongly object. We have a long and proud tradition of perfectly horrible and meaningless names such as XMLHttpRequest. I don't see why we'd ever have to change. Shadow HTML Anonymous DOm for the Web! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
On 12/14/2010 01:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov 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 Is it? That was just a proposal, but I prefer the spec before the latest editions. -Olli , 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? :) :DG<
Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov 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
Re: Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
I'm with you :-) I really dislike the current name, and it keeps reminding me of XBEL, the bookmark exchanging language. Kenneth On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov 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? :) > > :DG< > > -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer Application and Service Frameworks, Nokia Danmark A/S Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth.christiansen at gmail.com http://codeposts.blogspot.com ﹆﹆﹆
Rename XBL2 to something without X, B, or L?
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? :) :DG<
