Tuples about infra

[annevk]

A tuple origin is somewhat inconsistent from this perspective. We have used the aforementioned "tuple notation", but the tuple members also have a name as something you'd expect more from a record.

https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#event-path also uses this pattern. Tuple for brevity, with the clarity of a record available when needed.

[annevk]

Maybe "tuple" and "named tuple"?

[domenic]

I think we should try to just have one concept. My thinking is that we call it "tuple" since Web IDL gave a different meaning to "record" already. And we say that the default notation is e.g. (item: x, target: y, relatedTarget: z), but that for brevity when context is clear, you can just do (x, y, z). And we note that context is usually clear as long as you explain the type of tuple you're using, e.g. the path tuple (x, y, z).