W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: DOM Tree

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:22:02 -0700
Message-Id: <01D4FDC0-3326-4C04-BDBC-BFF41C850AB9@jumis.com>
Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "gkaur@gurpreetkaur.org" <gkaur@gurpreetkaur.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On the topic of semantics, Shadow DOM is getting a little crowded; the canvas shadow dom is a part of the dom unique in that its children are essentially display: none, but can still receive focus. The "Shadow DOM" title can also apply to native form widgets, and has been exposed for WebKit authors to toy with; with great similarity to XBL2 intentions. And as I head into possible SVG a11y semantics, foreignObject may act as another shadow.

They're also called fallback content in two cases, but that's something of a misnomer, as the content is picked up for the accessibility tree.

Anyway, something to consider. We may want to call the canvas shadow dom something else, like the canvas accessibility subtree.


On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:28 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:12:02 -0700, <gkaur@gurpreetkaur.org> wrote:
>> I think you should changed the nomenclature for DOM tree. It's not a tree. It's an upside down tree since the root element is at the top. DOM Tree doesn't make any sense.
>> I hope this makes sense.
>> (Ms.) Gurpreet Kaur
> It actually makes a lot of sense from a programming perspective:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 17:22:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:17 UTC