- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:26:33 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22344 --- Comment #18 from Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org> --- (In reply to comment #17) > If we encounter an active shadow insertion point in the outer 'for' loop, > just remember the position of the active insertion point and skip the > traversal of subtree of the active shadow insertion point. > Afte the loop, we continue to distribute POOL to content elements in the > subtree of the active insertion point. > That should be done in O(n). To clarify: What you have written above is a proposal about the order of distribution of <content> elements. I think your algorithm is confusing because we're also talking about reprojection for <shadow> which would replenish the pool, etc. > My proposal is use 'defer' attribute in content element such as: > > > <shadow><content defer></content></shadow> I think we should go for something more flexible like letting the user specify an order. But I would love to know what web developers think. > Like <scrit src='..' defer> is evaluated later, distributing nodes for > <content defer> is deferred. > I prefer this explicit approach than an implicit hidden rule. I think other proposals are preferable to hard-coding <content> in <shadow> to come last. I can think of cases where you *don't* want content in <shadow> to come last. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 01:26:35 UTC