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 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. >> > > 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