- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:11:34 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7978 --- Comment #12 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2009-10-26 15:11:33 --- > You could end up with this tree in HTML too with scripting. Does it matter? Apparently not, since Mozilla has gotten no bug reports on it, unlike the other approaches we've tried here. > Could we use :empty instead of :htmlness if it matters, or is that more > expensive? :empty is certainly more expensive; I can't say how much more offhand. In some cases it's probably not noticeable at all. On the other hand, I can certainly construct pathological testcases which cause :empty to trigger O(N) behavior on append in Gecko. I can't speak to other engines. Comment 11 sounds good. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 15:11:37 UTC