- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:22:35 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Jo?o Eiras wrote: > > > > Ensuring consistency between browsers, to reduce the likelihood that > > any particular browser's ordering becomes important and then forcing > > that browser's ordering (which could be some arbitrary ordering > > dependent on some particular hash function, say) into the platform de > > facto. > > > > This is similar to what happened to ES property names -- they were > > supposedly unordered, UAs were allowed to sort them however they > > liked, and now we are locked in to a particular order. > > I strongly think the order should not be sorted, but should reflect the > order of the token in original string which was broken down into tokens. > It would also make implementations much simpler and sane, and would > spare extra cpu cycles by avoiding the sort operations. On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > I was about to follow up on this. Requiring sorting which is O(n log n) > for something that can be done in O(n) makes thing slower without any > real benefit. Like Jo?o said the order should be defined as the order > of the class content attribute. Fair enough. Done. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 12:22:35 UTC