Repository navigation
"component tree" is just "node tree" #384
Description
Activity
See the followings for details:
- Figure out terminology for Shadow DOM that everyone agrees on #382 (comment)
- Figure out terminology for Shadow DOM that everyone agrees on #382 (comment)
I would like to defer the decision because it depends on #382 (comment)
If we decide not to support the distribution for a composed tree whose root tree is not a document tree, we can define a component tree as either a document tree or a shadow tree, and can remove the other terminologies - fragment tree and primary component tree. We do not have to update other parts of the spec. That's one of the reasons I use "component tree" as an alias, as of now.
Also, why is DocumentFragment left out in this concept? All shadow root should be document fragments, right?
A DocumentFragment which is not a shadow root:
- is a node tree
- is a fragment tree
- is a component tree
- is not a primary component tree
It seems that the concept of a component tree is redundant with node tree.
Also I don't like the term A primary component tree. "component" seems like an arbitrary prefix that doesn't add any value; It makes me think of a Web component, and that's a bad thing. I think "primary tree" would be a better name.
Also, why is
DocumentFragmentleft out in this concept? All shadow root should be document fragments, right?