Re: [whatwg/dom] Naming of Composed Range (Issue #1363)

smaug---- left a comment (whatwg/dom#1363)

I said I can live with that even though I disagree with you why it is or it is not needed. (IMO, it doesn't add any useful value if we anyhow call the thing "... uncomposed range", since that uncomposed is already very clear. And having something called "uncomposed" is odd enough that one should think what is then composed.  Gecko has internal Node::GetUncomposedDoc() and Node::GetComposedDoc(), as an example, and that naming scheme has been very useful and clear for years now.)

My main question there was that it isn't clear to me what the latest proposal here is for the other range. Is that "composed range"?  Or is it still one of the names mentioned in the original comment?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1363#issuecomment-2721051565
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/1363/2721051565@github.com>