- From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:42:43 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Tim Streater <tim@clothears.org.uk>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> So it looks to me like in practice Element.getElementById could be quite a >> bit faster than the equivalent querySelector call, for both the in-tree case >> (where both can avoid walking the tree) and the out-of-tree case (where both >> need to walk the tree). >> >> Food for thought. > > So do you think we should add getElementById() to ParentNode in DOM? Why not to Element? > It seems the advantages are that we can optimize it better than > querySelector() because there is no selector parsing. And because > there is no selector parsing, you can simply pass the value of an > element's id attribute rather than escaping said value using CSS > escape rules. > > What it seems we lack is a clear need for either, but if the cost of > implementing it is low, maybe it's worth it? Because of HTMLCollection's name getter, all major browsers must be capable of a id+name lookup at every element (since Element has getElementsByTagName that returns a HTMLCollection). - R. Niwa
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 18:43:22 UTC