SEP: Align on UI terminology

[idosal]

The spec has multiple names for the UI -

1. Guest UI refers to the rendered resources.
2. Widget refers to the rendered resources.
3. App is usually used for the concept or overall application (an App as an MCP server may be comprised of multiple widgets and tools). However, in the code, AppRenderer and appBridge refer to a single rendered resource.

We need to align on the terminology.

[glen-84]

FWIW, I prefer the term Component.

If the AppRenderer is rendering a single component, then perhaps it should be named ComponentRenderer? (and likewise, componentBridge).

[nickcoai]

I'm a fan of Component too - I don't really like "Widget" as I feel these things could be quite large and complex, not just something on the side (widgets feel "small")

[idosal]

Sounds good. The only note is that the term "Component" may be ambiguous in the context of MCP App development (e.g., UI/React Component), so it might need to be disambiguated as "MCP Component". Thoughts?

[aharvard]

Good discussion.

To me, the term Component feels small in the same way that Widget does. Initially, I thought of these things as "widget templates" or "render templates," but I'm not quite sure that's a good enough analogy.

[liady]

I agree that Component might suggest something too granular, especially for devs with a React background. btw Applet would fit conceptually, but the Java association makes it feel outdated.