I agree with Scott; notraverse, something along those lines.
Glad to hear about the wide consensus on the overall effort.
On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been a while since I looked at this spec, what are the ways in which you can get access? It seems like a name such as traversable could work well.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> What about obscured, opaque, invisible, or restricted?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/12/13 2:41 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 3/12/13 5:19 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>>> >> However, to allow developers a degree of enforcing integrity of their
>>> >> shadow trees, we are going add a new mode, an equivalent of a "KEEP OUT"
>>> >> sign, if you will, which will makes a shadow tree non-traversable,
>>> >> effectively skipping over it in an element's shadow tree stack.
>>> >
>>> >To be clear, what this mode does is turn off the simple way of getting
>>> >the shadow tree. It does not promise that someone can't get at the
>>> >shadow tree via various non-obvious methods, because in practice such
>>> >promises are empty as long as script inside the component runs against
>>> >the web page global.
>>> >
>>> >The question is how to name this. "Hidden" seems to promise too much to
>>> >me. Perhaps "obfuscated"? "Veiled"?
>>> >
>>> >-Boris
>>> >
>>> >P.S. Tempting as it is, "RedWithGreenPolkadots" is probably not an OK
>>> >name for this bikeshed.
>>>
>>> Apologies in advance for adding to the bikeshedding
>>>
>>> protected (mostly private, but you can get around it)
>>> shielded (the shield can be lowered)
>>> gated (the gate can be opened)
>>> fenced (most fences have an opening)
>>>
>>> Or bleenish-grue, if we're going with color names.
>>>
>>> Alan
>