[Bug 18540] Proposal for a new acceptNode() return value for TreeWalker.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18540

Leo Deng <myst.dg@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |myst.dg@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Leo Deng <myst.dg@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It would be nice to have some kind of data how often TreeWalker code is
> invoked in browsers on average. (And maybe make sure to not count Acid3
> runs.) We can make logical additions, but if nobody uses it there is no
> point.

Actually this proposal is brought by two posts on my blog that talk of an
interview quiz for front-end web developers: how to filter DOM nodes on given
condition (written in Chinese, don't know whether you could read).

http://forcefront.com/2012/an-interview-quiz-filtered-dom-selector/
http://forcefront.com/2012/an-interview-quiz-filtered-dom-selector-continued/

As professional developers, we are encouraged to find various solutions so as
to choose the best one and make websites better. Well yes, I don't see anyone
using TreeWalker or NodeIterator. Why? Because they suck! TreeWalker is the
slowest one among five solutions I provided. The best one is ten time faster
than it!

And by the way, I don't think whether to fix a bug in spec depends on the
number of people facing it. That's browser vendors' job. Since W3C focuses on
delivering standards, the primary consideration should be "whether it is a bug
or not".

"Oh, since nobody's using, so be it." There's an old saying in China: smash a
pot to pieces just because it's cracked, which means to write oneself off as
hopeless and act recklessly.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 18:45:14 UTC