Doc improvement? WebC's relation to the Web Components spec/tech

[nielsbom]

Hi,

First of all: thanks for all the hard work on Eleventy and related projects such as WebC! My intention with this issue is to prevent confusion for the future users of WebC.

---

I'm currently getting up to speed with WebC, I was using nunchucks before. Something that confused me quite a bit is the relation between WebC and the Web Components spec/tech.

Because WebC's README uses the term "Web Components" quite regularly my (incorrect!) assumption was that WebC uses Web Components tech somehow (in the compilation step or something). But as @zachleat says in this podcast:

Host: "this has nothing to do with the web platform's Web Components ..."

@zachleat: "yeah correct, it's mostly reusing the same conventions that are used for Web Components"

So I'm sure I'm not the only one that's confused here:

1. WebC is named after Web Components.
2. The README uses, but not clearly defines, the term "Web Components".
3. WebC reuses a lot of the conventions of actual Web Components.

All of this leading up to WebC not actually using any tech underneath Web Components, but naming the WebC components "Web Components".

---

All this being said my suggestion would be to go back in time and use a different name for WebC and the components it creates, like "VCom" and "Vanilla Components" or something. But that ship (or Delorean) has probably sailed.

My actual suggestions are:

1. Make the exact relation between WebC and Web Components very clear in both the documentation and any communication about WebC.

2. Use the term "WebC Web Components" (abbreviated to WCWC?) instead of the bare "Web Components" in every introductory text where confusion may arise.

So in a couple of places write things like:

WebC is a file format that reuses some of the conventions created for Web Components. WebC allows you to create components which we'll call "WebC Web Components" or "WCWC". These WebC Web Components are not the same as the ones you can create using the Web Components standard.

I'm not sure where to "drop the confusion bomb" of:

You can use WebC to create WebC Web Components that are Web Components.

But maybe that's something that should live deep in the WebC docs.

[apotek]

Related to this confusion which @nielsbom summarized really well, there already is a WebC that has been around for a long while. It would have been courteous I think to be creative and come up with a new name instead of squatting on someone else's work. Like @nielsbom says, I suppose the ship has sailed.