- From: Hayato Ito <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:32:55 -0800
- To: w3c/webcomponents <webcomponents@noreply.github.com>
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 10:33:32 UTC
It is not a good idea to use a `slotted tree` as a replacement of a `composed tree`. A concept of a `composed tree` can exist without a slot element. It represents a relationship between node trees, purely. Any terminology which is related to *distribution* should not be involved there. We might add yet another slot-like element in the future. Thus, a `composed tree` should be a concept which is independent of any particular element. I agree that the usage of current "composed XXX" is confusing. Let me think further how we can avoid this confusion. Hmm. ... and I am now thinking that re-using `composed tree`, which was used in another meaning in the past, is simply a bad idea due to the historical reason. I'm okay not to use `composed tree` if we have another good idea, as you suggested. Let me update this thread later when I have a clear idea. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/382#issuecomment-189209930
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 10:33:32 UTC