Re: [webcomponents] Upstream Shadow DOM spec to DOM/HTML Standard (#377)

> My thinking with respect to the "deep" terminology was that it would be exactly like "composed", but restricted to "unclosed" nodes.

I'm okay to use the deep terminology in this sense. But the current Shadow DOM spec does not follow this rule, e.g. "deep child": http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#dfn-deep-child

If we reserve the "deep" terminology for this purpose, "deep child" or other similar terminologies should bee renamed to something, such as "composed child" ?

> So most standards would operate on "composed documents", but APIs would be restricted to either "documents" or "deep documents", depending on the use case.

I am fine with this idea, basically. From my experience, most standards could operate on "composed documents". It's rare case that APIs would be restricted to "deep documents".


> There was also the case of nodes that would not end up in the composed tree and how to address them. I don't think we had a solution for that.

"in a composed document, but not in the document composed tree" could work, I think.



---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/377#issuecomment-179612170