- From: ExE Boss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:25:55 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> > would be essentially identical in terms of performance, and therefore viable for the live profile.
>
> That is not true. `b.matches('a b:has(c)')` requires looking at every descendant of `b`, while `c.matches('a b c')` does not. Evaluating the selector is much more expensive.
That’s from JavaScript. I mean the initial parsing, which ends up being fast‑ish since once you encounter `c`, you can send an event back to `b`, which would be marked as potentially matching a `:has(…)` selector and be updated as such.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by ExE-Boss
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3345#issuecomment-441571728 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 26 November 2018 09:25:56 UTC