- From: Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:29:48 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 7/5/11 5:21 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: >> >> For ChildlistChanged, the potential data to be included: >> -Target node* >> -Removed nodes* >> -Added nodes >> -one of nextSibling or previousSibling* >> >> My belief is that including the starred (*) data above would be >> sufficient to meet David's test of mirroring a tree *without* a ton of >> processing or O(N) memory. > > How is that not O(N) memory? Sorry - that was imprecise. What I meant was: the application script wouldn't need to maintain more or less it's own copy of the DOM to know for certain whether a node has effectively been added, removed, or moved elsewhere in the document. > > -Boris >
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 21:30:21 UTC