W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [webcomponents]: Making Shadow DOM Subtrees Traversable

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:11:55 -0700
Message-Id: <F6521696-7544-44A5-A29B-CE71F9EC2C88@jumis.com>
Cc: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@gmail.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
I agree with Scott; notraverse, something along those lines.

Glad to hear about the wide consensus on the overall effort.


On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's been a while since I looked at this spec, what are the ways in which you can get access? It seems like a name such as traversable could work well.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> What about obscured, opaque, invisible, or restricted?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/12/13 2:41 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >On 3/12/13 5:19 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>>> >> However, to allow developers a degree of enforcing integrity of their
>>> >> shadow trees, we are going add a new mode, an equivalent of a "KEEP OUT"
>>> >> sign, if you will, which will makes a shadow tree non-traversable,
>>> >> effectively skipping over it in an element's shadow tree stack.
>>> >
>>> >To be clear, what this mode does is turn off the simple way of getting
>>> >the shadow tree.  It does not promise that someone can't get at the
>>> >shadow tree via various non-obvious methods, because in practice such
>>> >promises are empty as long as script inside the component runs against
>>> >the web page global.
>>> >
>>> >The question is how to name this.  "Hidden" seems to promise too much to
>>> >me.  Perhaps "obfuscated"?  "Veiled"?
>>> >
>>> >-Boris
>>> >
>>> >P.S.  Tempting as it is, "RedWithGreenPolkadots" is probably not an OK
>>> >name for this bikeshed.
>>> 
>>> Apologies in advance for adding to the bikeshedding
>>> 
>>> protected (mostly private, but you can get around it)
>>> shielded (the shield can be lowered)
>>> gated (the gate can be opened)
>>> fenced (most fences have an opening)
>>> 
>>> Or bleenish-grue, if we're going with color names.
>>> 
>>> Alan
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 00:12:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:58 GMT