Re: [webcomponents] Difference between composed document and document flat tree (#382)

> What you call component tree today is no different from "node tree"

Yeah, that's true.

Unfortunately, "component tree" become the same meaning of "node tree" at this commit:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/commit/963bce31f4c108f1fa7248a31077ab72c67c3e7b

I was aware of this fact when committing this change, however, I had no better idea and do not want to replace all "component tree" with "node tree" at that time.

> I'm a little confused with what the specification calls "composed tree" today. When we talked about "composed tree" elsewhere I had what the specification calls the "flat tree" in mind.

Yes. That's painful. Actually, my colleague objected when I tried to *re-use* the "composed tree" as other meaning because it might be confusing. But I thought that we had to do it before upstreaming. I wanted to get rid of ugly the terminology of "tree of trees", so I decided to re-use "composed tree" as "tree of trees" because "composed tree" became a good candidate to replace "tree of trees", give that we started to use "composed XXX", such as "composed child", "composed parent", to represent a relationship within a tree of trees, where distribution is not involved at all.

> Is the "composed tree" language really necessary vs just talking about a node tree's hosted shadow trees or some such?

I do not expect that we have to use the "composed tree" frequently. In most cases, we can simply use "in a composed document" or "inserted into a composed document". That is enough and will cover the most cases.

We might get rid of this terminology, "composed tree", but this is very useful concept to define relevant algorithms. I do not care how we call it. "tree of trees", "composed tree" or something else, anything is okay to me. But I just needed a terminology to represent "tree of trees" so far.

> I'm probably missing something significant here, but it seems variants of what the specification calls "flat tree" is what we'll need to define most features.

Good question, however, I am not sure which is used frequently: "composed XXX" vs "flat XXX".

- At lest, we should use "composed XXX" as a alternative of a "in a document".
   -  e.g. `<script>` runs only when "inserted into a composed document".
- CSS inheritance operate on "flat tree".
- Some of attributes operate on "flat tree": See http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/shadow/#attributes

Hmm. I can not tell which is used frequently. Do you want to use "composed XXX" as frequent words?


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/382#issuecomment-184732751