- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:49:17 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Robert Green <rgqld@iinet.net.au>, public-webapps@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> I have been told that the reason for not having live collections is >> for performance, but I find that hard to understand. The current live >> collections are much faster than their native javascript emulations, I >> can't see that getting a collection every time it is required will be >> faster than getting it once and using it many times. > > This is in fact the reason they are static. Browser implementors > indicated that doing this live would not perform well due to the > relative complexity of Selectors. Just as a point of record, I believe browser implementors were split on the issue (e.g. I think in Gecko live performance would be as good, if not better in many cases, as non-live performance. I said so at the time as well). The argument that seemed to carry the day at the time is that live nodelists in general are an "anti-pattern" that shouldn't be foisted on authors. -Boris
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 13:50:24 UTC