On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:11:40 +0100, Anton Muhin >> <antonm@chromium.org> wrote: >>> Is it possible to allow caching for those cases? Firefox caches >>> those >>> node lists for a long time (Maciej found the related bug >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140758). IE8 caches as >>> well. Opera, Safari and Chrome do not. >> >> Sorry for the somewhat late reply. We'd prefer not to change the >> specification here and keep the requirement. We're afraid of >> potential hard to detect incompatibility bugs if you sometimes >> cache and sometimes don't. We're also not convinced that you cannot >> get the performance win by other means. > > Since Firefox and IE both cache, how would it create compatibility > bugs for other browsers to do so as well? I think we should remove > the requirement unless Firefox and IE are willing to change their > implementations. In addition, I should mention that likely the only observable difference is in setting custom ("expando") properties. If you make two equivalent requests for a NodeList, setting a property on one will show up on the other only in the case where there was caching. However, I think use of expando properties on NodeLists is unlikely. Sacrificing a lot of performance for a marginal hypothetical improvement in predictability of behavior does not seem like a good tradeoff. Regards, MaciejReceived on Friday, 12 February 2010 11:51:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT