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.gonza...@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 <dan...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> What about obscured, opaque, invisible, or restricted? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Alan Stearns <stea...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> On 3/12/13 2:41 PM, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbar...@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 >