rename visible

[Mouvedia]

When ref(visible of selector) returns yes you could logically think it's visible: you would be wrong, it could be hidden by another element. It's badly named: it should describe what it does.

render: yes | no;

rendered: yes | no;
display: yes | no;
displayed: yes | no;
insert: yes | no;
inserted: yes | no;
is: yes | no;

[vprimachenko]

+1 for displayed

[veosotano]

I don't think this is an issue. Something being visible on your page, in an abstract sense, has nothing to do with wether it is overlapping with another element and is being obscured. Also, the name "visible" as it is now, is immediately familiar with CSS users, since it acts the same as visibility: hidden. Keep in mind that the flow is still being affected even if not visible.

[Mouvedia]

I gotta say that I originally planned to introduce a new read-only property which would return the state of an element (yes for visible, no for completely hidden, partial for partially visible/hidden). And @veosotano pointed out that it can't be considered reliable once you take transparency into account.

Let's talk about what this property does. This property is not about whether the element is visible or not. Does it insert or remove an element into/from the tree? Since you said that the flow is still affected that means that we can remove insert and inserted. Since it has no incidence on the existence of the element we can also remove is. Does it render or display the element on the screen? The answer is yes. Since it's not a read-only property the verb form should be chosen: it's an order. So we end up with:

render: yes | no;
display: yes | no;

Which one is the most accurate? Which one would you pick? And why?

[vprimachenko]

display because css

[Mouvedia]

display because css

@vprimachenko in CSS display removes elements from the flow. So that's actually something that could be confusing for an user with a CSS background.