- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:47:31 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Tim Streater <tim@clothears.org.uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 10/22/13 7:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > So do you think we should add getElementById() to ParentNode in DOM? I actually do, yes. > It seems the advantages are that we can optimize it better than > querySelector() because there is no selector parsing. This, in my mind, is a somewhat minor advantage. > 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. Right. More importantly, you don't have to even understand that there are CSS escaping rules involved, which is a bigger hurdle than doing the escaping once you've understood that part.... > What it seems we lack is a clear need for either Where by "either" you mean lack of a need for passing without escaping first? See above. > but if the cost of > implementing it is low, maybe it's worth it? The way I see it, UAs already have to implement SVGSVGElement.prototype.getElementById. I suspect that in practice the same implementation can be used for any Element or DocumentFragment, so the cost of implementing is in fact quite low. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 03:48:02 UTC