Re: [webcomponents] Figure out terminology for Shadow DOM that everyone agrees on (#382)

> > Why don't we always say "document tree or shadow tree"?
> Shadow DOM should work for a node tree which is neither document tree nor shadow tree, which we just agreed on???

I don't follow. A node tree's root node is either a Document, ShadowRoot, or something else, right? It's a shadow tree if the root node is a shadow tree, and document tree if its root node is a Document.

> @rniwa I'm not sure I follow how that can be used. HTML has "in a document" now. Meaning a node's ancestor is document. We need something like that, meaning a node's shadow-host-including inclusive ancestor is document. With shadow-host-including inclusive ancestor defined as a variant on https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-tree-host-including-inclusive-ancestor with hosts restricted to shadow roots.

Didn't we say we use the term `connected` for that?  Why isn't that just a connected composed tree / disconnected composed tree?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/382#issuecomment-191180231