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.

-Charles

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:08 GMT