Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should we use affordance instead of interaction? #241

Closed
relu91 opened this issue Aug 24, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #272
Closed

Should we use affordance instead of interaction? #241

relu91 opened this issue Aug 24, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #272
Assignees

Comments

@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Aug 24, 2020

Throughout the document, we often use WoT interaction referring to Properties/Actions/Events. Should we changed to WoT affordance?

Derived from #239

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

Yes we should

@zolkis
Copy link
Contributor

zolkis commented Aug 24, 2020

For JS developers the term "interaction" is intelligible, whereas "affordance" is a more special term, mainly for WoT-insiders...

We could make an editor's note perhaps to say that "interaction" in this document matches to "interaction affordance" in the TD spec.

@danielpeintner
Copy link
Contributor

We could make an editor's note perhaps to say that "interaction" in this document matches to "interaction affordance" in the TD spec.

Or the other way around. Stick with WoT terminology "affordance" and given a hint to JS developers.

@danielpeintner
Copy link
Contributor

Scripting Call Aug 31:

  • add Note explaining the relation between Scripting "interaction" and TD "affordance"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants