Re: [webcomponents] isEncapsulated naming (#107)

Yeah, I welcome any opinion. Actually, I've spent only a few minutes to give it a name. :)
I had a similar idea, `stopsAtShadowRoot`, but I chose `isEncapsulated` without a strong reason because I saw `isTrusted` in the spec, as Travis mentioned.

Sounds is-prefix is less-loved recently. I've changed it `encapsulated` at e19e7f0.

I think we still need a better idea. I don't want to expose a term of 'encapsulation' to the APIs.

The candidates:
- stopsAtShadowBoundaries
- stopsAtShadowRoot
- stopsPropagationAtShadowBoundaries
- Any better ideas.

What makes the naming difficult is that the event doesn't alway stop at a shadow root if a node is distributed to an insertion point.

e.g.
In the example of http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#event-paths-example, if an event happens on L, the event doesn't stop at Q or N. It stops at L.



---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/107#issuecomment-109855407