[Bug 26365] [Shadow]: Need an equivalent definition of 'in a Document' for shadow trees

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26365

--- Comment #13 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to Olli Pettay from comment #11)
> I don't understand the difference between 3 and 4.
> "A node is in a tree of trees rooted by a Document" vs
> "A node is *in a composed tree whose root is a Document*"

For example, the following codes could be in (3), but not in (4):

- A node is a child node of a shadow host, but the node is not distributed to
any insertion points.
- A node is in the older shadow tree, but the younger shadow tree doesn't have
<shadow>  element.
- A node is a child of content insertion points.

These nodes couldn't participate in the composed tree.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 01:27:01 UTC