- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:56:43 +0000
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:39:35 +0000, Dean Edwards <dean at edwards.name> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > The requirement to iterate over every element in the document looking
> > for the attribute, and the requirement to iterate over every attribute
> > in every element in the template looking to perform the substitution
> > when inserting make it all very, very slow (the IE attributes
> > collection contains more than just the attributes defined, and setting
> > attributes like name are not actually well supported)
> >
>
> Yes you would have to iterate over each element to attach the repetition
> template interface. Olav Junker Kj?r provided a solution to this speed
> this up a little:
>
> * {
> behavior:expression((this.repeat)?"url(repetitionElement.htc)":"");
> display: expression((this.repeat=="template")?"none":this.display);
> }
>
> this is an order of magnitude quicker than using DOM methods.
I can't agree that it's an acceptable solution - whilst it's true it
can be quicker to initially to do it, however the expression is
continously processed at interval later - onfocus etc. and you can't
remove the behaviour until sime time after the document has loaded.
see ( http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/8fb010f87ab971f3
)
For example adding this to a reasonable document like my homepage,
means that there's a 1.5 sec delay when I focus the window etc.
* {
behavior:expression((this.repeat)?"url(repetitionElement.htc)":"");
display: expression((this.repeat=="template")?"none":this.display);
chicken: expression(window.status=(globalCount++));
}
even without the chicken, which is particularly slow, it stil takes a
noticeable delay
> I think that performance only becomes a problem for a large number of
> repeats, say a hundred or so.
in testing (not of a complete implementation or anything, but of the
components involved in doing it) then a regular sized page, with one
repeat element with quite a few elements in it gave what was to me
unacceptable performance.
Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 14:56:43 UTC