Re: [w3c/webcomponents] node.isConnected (#81)

I do not have a strong preference. I guess "shadow-including" is too long and *scary*?

Thus, we will use "a connected descendant" / "a connected inclusive ancestor" and so on? I am fine with it. "Node.isConnected" would be just the short name for "Node.isConnected(ToDocument)".  That's fine too.

I am afraid that someone does not like it because "connected" is a general term. However, we have already decided to use "isConnected" to specify the meaning of "shadow-including". Thus, that would not make things worse, I guess.



---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/81#issuecomment-206717206