What should the snowman be? (Proposal renaming)

[jgravelle-google]

In the talk at the CG Meeting the idea of ⛄-bindings was proposed, with the intention being that it was a new as-yet-unnamed thing.

What should we name it? We need to name the proposal itself, the new types we're specifying, the operators the convert to+from wasm types and ⛄ types, and the set of values that can produce. A reasonable naming scheme fits the pattern of x-bindings, x-types, x-operators, and x-values.

One option is to call the proposal wasm-bindings, and then have binding-types, binding-operators, and binding-values. A problem here is that referring to "binding" is ambiguous, the term isn't precise enough to disambiguate from a binding expression, to the stubs an engine would generate between modules, to the verb of the act of binding itself. This proposal is potentially very abstract, and having concrete names for the components of it should facilitate discussion.

An idea that @lukewagner came up with offline was "WebAssembly External Bindings" for the proposal itself. This implies "external binding [types|operators|values]". This is precise, but verbose. For ease of communication, I think we can abbreviate that in most contexts to EBTypes, EBOperators, and EBValues.

Are there naming considerations I'm missing? Wildly better naming ideas?

[binji]

First thing that pops into my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._B._Farnum

Yes, I did watch the Deadwood Movie recently, why do you ask?

[ttraenkler]

I find simple, self-explanatory names helpful that facilitate understanding and spreading the idea. Developers I talk to about Webassembly have a hard time following, even language experts.

From my perspective the gist of this proposal is a standard to convert or adapt the interface of one module, that is using a (language, compiler, ...) specific standard to another using a different standard.

What about module interface adapter (for short just adapter)? The model I have in mind is a plug adapter, which adapts/maps/translates/converts between two interface standards.

[sendilkumarn]

External Binding is (~) precise. If you feel name is longer we can also call it ExBind.

[sunfishcode]

X-Bindings. With X-Types, X-Operators, and X-Values. X for eXternal 😎.

[PoignardAzur]

I'm partial to OCAP bindings.

[jgravelle-google]

X-Bindings. With X-Types, X-Operators, and X-Values. X for eXternal 😎.

I'm... kind of legitimately okay with this. X for eXternal is almost identical to EB for External Bindings. It's a less awkward abbreviation. One less syllable to pronounce.

... Also this might be the 90s kid in me but it's X-tremely cool. 😎

Could also go with ExBindings/ExTypes/ExOperators if we wanted to be slightly less edgy. Though it does remind me of Windows-style APIs (e.g. GetVersionEx)

[lukewagner]

X seems a bit too mysterious or experimental-sound to my ear. E.g., for a while all the experimental HTTP Response headers were X-prefixed.

[fgmccabe]

I am experimenting (sic) with the term "Web Interoperability Bindings". With associated concepts of "Web Interoperability Interface Definition Language".

…

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:29 PM Luke Wagner ***@***.***> wrote: X seems a bit too mysterious or experimental-sound to my ear. E.g., for a while all the experimental HTTP Response headers <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers> were X- prefixed. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#47>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQAXUBMV7P7T4Z3U2KSINLP7ZKUBANCNFSM4IAGZ4UQ> .

-- Francis McCabe SWE

[Hywan]

I also sometimes call them WebAssembly Boundary Bindings, instead of External Bindings. A boundary can be crossed in both ways (with incoming or outgoing values), whilst “External” refers to the outer world without the notion of going outside or inside. Also it clearly expressed the “borders” of a Wasm module, and can represent all usages of bindings: From module to host, or from module to module.

I would not be in favor of “X-…” (x-bindings, x-types, x-operators) since X is too vague.

Wasm Boundary Bindings can be shorten to b-bindings, b-types, b-operators, where “b” can mean boundary or bindings (or beta, which is classy: β-types, β-operators, β-bindings).

Thoughts?

[fgmccabe]

I kind of like boundary; it speaks to the most salient aspect of this work. Would be open to a shorter noun.

…

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:23 AM Ivan Enderlin ***@***.***> wrote: I also sometimes call them WebAssembly Boundary Bindings, instead of External Bindings. A boundary can be crossed in both ways (with incoming or outgoing values), whilst “External” refers to the outer world without the notion of going outside or inside. Also it clearly expressed the “borders” of a Wasm module, and can represent all usages of bindings: From module to host, or from module to module. I would not be in favor of “X-…” (x-bindings, x-types, x-operators) since X is too vague. Wasm Boundary Bindings can be shorten to b-bindings, b-types, b-operators, where “b” can mean boundary or bindings (or beta, which is classy: β-types, β-operators, β-bindings). Thoughts? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#47>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQAXUHM4ZP3632S62KTNNDP73QHPANCNFSM4IAGZ4UQ> .

-- Francis McCabe SWE

[tlively]

SNO (shared-nothing object) bindings ❄️

[KronicDeth]

@tlively I suggested ❄️ bindings to @lukewagner at the in-person too because it looks really close, but not exactly like 🕸. Just like how these are really close, but not exactly WebIDL bindings. Also, now I just find it funny if we get an emoji character in the name of a standard.

[titzer]

+1 for a real name here. I have been confused for weeks as to what the heck the snowman is for. (finally had it explained to me--snowman is more real than a strawman ??)