Talk:Universal Windows Platform apps: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:44, 11 May 2017

Revision as of 15:14, 11 May 2017

Line 306:

Hello, {{u|WikIan}}. I am here to inform you that I saw your ping notification. I'd like to let you know that I am staying away from this discussion per [[WP:CANVASS]]. Feel free to invoke a [[WP:3O]]. All I can say is that both of you must give the words of each other due considerations. —My best, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:{{u|Codename Lisa}}, I pinged you on this discussion, because you've made the most edits to this article, and thought you should have a say in addressing the above items. Thanks, <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"><font color="black">WikIan [[User:WikIan|-]]([[User talk:WikIan|talk]])</font></span> 12:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::{{Ping|WikIan}} Thanks for your consideration and your intelligent answer. I appreciate it.

::But despite my oath to patch things up with you, I simply mustn't be part of the consensus-building process; not now and not here.

::There is another issue too: For a long time, I was afraid of bringing this article out of my userpage. The reason was that I felt this topic is highly controversial and writing an article on it was like opening a can of worms. The most important issue was the title of the article. I simply could not come up with a satisfactory title. "Metro-style app" didn't seem right to me because any app, both traditional and new generation could theoretically adhere to the Metro design language. "Windows Runtime app" sounded wrong because Microsoft had allowed web browsers from Google and Firefox to have a presence in Windows Store and have access to the full repertoire of Windows APIs. They weren't Windows Runtime-only. "Windows Store apps" seemed wrong, because technically, you could sideload apps. But people were angry over something new that had come with Windows 8. The trouble was, they were also looking for a name that Microsoft had denied them.

::Fortunately, my background in linguistics eventually rescued me. Language does not concerns itself with abject technical accuracy and emphasizes that what's correct is what's used widely. In linguistics, there is always exception. For example, a human can be defined as a two-legged creature and will NOT be stripped of the humanity status even when he loses a leg. So, all those apps that were available from Windows Store? They were Metro-style apps even if they neither cared for the Metro design language nor for Windows Runtime. All those non-existent apps that could theoretically adhere to Metro design language? They were not Metro-style app; even if one day, they came into existence in overwhelming force, the Metro-style app's definition won't change. (The seeming incongruity between the title and the definition is only something for etymology.) Apps packaged in APPX container were Windows Store apps even those that were sideloaded. So Metro-style apps and Windows Store apps were one and the same.

::I see that Windows 10 has changed the playground a bit: "App" = "packaged in APPX". "Trusted Store App" = "An App that, even when side-loaded, exists on Windows Store". "Desktop app" = "A shortcut to some EXE file".

::Now, you and FC must decide whether this article must be about everything packaged in APPX (App) or those UWP apps that made people so angry. Just mind the inbound links.

::Best regards,<br/>[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)