To close the loop, I renamed the spec to "HTML Imports", which is now
at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/imports/index.html.
P.S. Not an April Fool's joke.
:DG<
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Eric Bidelman wrote:
> +1 on "HTML Imports" -
I am okay with this. Despite it sounding like a front for a shady
criminal organization. I can't complain. I mean, look at "Shadow DOM".
:DG<
+1 on "HTML Imports" -
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2013 11:45 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
> >
> > So. :
> >
> > rel type: "import"
> >
> > spec name:
> >
> > 1) "HTML Imports"
> > 2) "Web Imports"
> >
> > :DG<
> >
>
> Makes sense to me!
>
On Mar 28, 2013 11:45 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
> So. :
>
> rel type: "import"
>
> spec name:
>
> 1) "HTML Imports"
> 2) "Web Imports"
>
> :DG<
>
Makes sense to me!
So. :
rel type: "import"
spec name:
1) "HTML Imports"
2) "Web Imports"
:DG<
"import" sounds good.
Dominic
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Steve Orvell wrote:
> Err, yeah, thanks for pointing that out.
>
> I also like "import" or "imports."
>
> This makes sense given that the rel attribute is described as defining the
> relationship between the resource being loaded a
My association for HTML links is . Seems too confusing.
FWIW, I conducted a small survey to see what the broader community's mental
model of this is:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/118075919496626375791/posts/3GYkmd4UqLC. Got
about 42 responses; the top 3 being:
1. Web Import - 14 votes
2. Web Pack
Err, yeah, thanks for pointing that out.
I also like "import" or "imports."
This makes sense given that the rel attribute is described as defining the
relationship between the resource being loaded and the document (likely
outdated spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#adef-rel).
On Mar 27, 2013 2:27 PM, "Scott Miles" wrote:
>
> The problem I'm trying to get at, is that while a 'custom element' has a
chance of meeting your 1-6 criterion, the thing on the other end of has no such qualifications. As designed, the target
of this link is basically arbitrary HTML.
>
> This is
Changing my vote to 'web import'. I think that works just as well, if not
better, than 'include'.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Eric Bidelman wrote:
> My association for HTML links is . Seems too confusing.
>
> FWIW, I conducted a small survey to see what the
> broader community's mental mode
The word "component" will be used as a synonym for a custom element. Since
this spec is designed to load various html resources that may include
custom element definitions, attaching the word component to this spec is
just confusing.
We're loading html so rel="html" is most straightforward. The na
The problem I'm trying to get at, is that while a 'custom element' has a
chance of meeting your 1-6 criterion, the thing on the other end of has no such qualifications. As designed, the target
of this link is basically arbitrary HTML.
This is why I'm struggling with .
Scott
On Wed, Mar 27, 201
Just going to drop this in here for discussion. Let's try and get at what a
just a component 'is':
A gold-standard component:
1. Should do one thing well
2. Should contain all the necessary code to do that one thing (HTML, JS,
CSS)
3. Should be modular (and thus reusable)
4. Should be encapsulate
Forgive me if I'm perseverating, but do you imagine 'component' that is
included to be generic HTML content, and maybe some scripts or some custom
elements?
I'm curious what is it you envision when you say 'component', to test my
previous assertion about this word.
Scott
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at
'Component Include'
'Component Include' describes what the markup is doing, and I like that a
lot. The syntax is similar to including a stylesheet or a script and so
this name should be evocative enough for even a novice to understand what
is implied by it.
- Angelina
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:1
Fwiw, my main concern is that for my team and for lots of other people I
communicate with, 'component' is basically synonymous with 'custom
element'. In that context, 'component' referring to
chunk-of-web-resources-loaded-via-link is problematic, even if it's not
wrong, per se.
We never complained
I like the idea of "package" seems all encompassing which captures the
requirements nicely. That or perhaps "resource", but then resource seems
singular.
Or perhaps "component-package" so it is obvious that it's tied to web
components?
-Ryan
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrot
> should be called something more specific, having to do
> with enabling modularity and facilitating component dependency
> management that it actually does.
>
Component import or include. Or even component link, using not only link
type, but also the word "link" itself :-)
LT
On Mar 25, 2013 3:03 PM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
> Hello folks!
>
> It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the "Web
> Components" as the name for the spec (cc'd some
> of the "feedbackers").
>
> So... these malcontents are suggesting that "Web Components" is more a
> of a genera
Kardell; Steve Orvell;
seddon.r...@gmail.com; ladi...@gmail.com; Dominic Cooney
Subject: [webcomponents]: Naming the Baby
Hello folks!
It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the "Web
Components" as the name for the spec (cc'd some
of the "feedbackers&qu
Hello folks!
It seems that we've had a bit of informal feedback on the "Web
Components" as the name for the spec (cc'd some
of the "feedbackers").
So... these malcontents are suggesting that "Web Components" is more a
of a general name for all the cool things we're inventing, and should be call
21 matches
Mail list logo
