- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:22:51 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: DOM WG <www-dom@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANMdWTtZhnOJzbEVzqHCDhFa=431WGboe6-hLSARjtpeTPKt_g@mail.gmail.com>
An alternate proposal: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-July/040264.html. What I like about my proposal is that it can be generalized to anything that returns a Sequence<Node> and also is just less awkward than the TreeWalker/NodeIterator interfaces. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, François REMY < francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > *TL/DR*: CSS Selectors represent the most commonly used way to perform > search in the DOM. But, until now, you’ve to choose between using CSS > (querySelectorAll) or doing incremental search (createTreeWalker). I think > we should try to fix that. > > The proposal here would be to accept CSS selectors in replacement to the > existing whatToShow flags {which are difficult to use and not entirely > satisfying}, i.e. overloading the createTreeWalker/createNodeIterator > functions to take a CSS Selector in the form of a string as a second > parameter. > > > var tw = document.createTreeWalker(document.body, “ul.menu > li”); > while(tw.nextNode()) { > if(...) break; > ... > } > > > *Advantages:* > > > - It’s much faster than to use a javascript function as a filter that > would call again the browser stack to find out whether a CSS selector match > or not a specific element > > - We do not loose the ability to provide a more complex piece of > javascript if we really need it, but we reduced the cases where we need one. > > - It’s less code to write (CSS is more efficient than any piece of JS) > > - It allows getting rid of the long named constants nobody likes to use > > > In addition, it would open huge optimization opportunities for the browser > (like skipping siblings that look similar, not entering into descendants if > it’s known a certain css class is not present among them, reusing cached > lists of elements matching a selector, or whatever). > > Thougths? >
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 02:29:39 UTC