- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:22:02 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "gkaur@gurpreetkaur.org" <gkaur@gurpreetkaur.org>
On the topic of semantics, Shadow DOM is getting a little crowded; the canvas shadow dom is a part of the dom unique in that its children are essentially display: none, but can still receive focus. The "Shadow DOM" title can also apply to native form widgets, and has been exposed for WebKit authors to toy with; with great similarity to XBL2 intentions. And as I head into possible SVG a11y semantics, foreignObject may act as another shadow. They're also called fallback content in two cases, but that's something of a misnomer, as the content is picked up for the accessibility tree. Anyway, something to consider. We may want to call the canvas shadow dom something else, like the canvas accessibility subtree. -Charles On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:28 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:12:02 -0700, <gkaur@gurpreetkaur.org> wrote: >> I think you should changed the nomenclature for DOM tree. It's not a tree. It's an upside down tree since the root element is at the top. DOM Tree doesn't make any sense. >> >> I hope this makes sense. >> >> (Ms.) Gurpreet Kaur > > It actually makes a lot of sense from a programming perspective: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure) > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 17:22:40 UTC