- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:01:52 +0200
- To: del@alum.mit.edu, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:57:02 +0200, Del Merritt <del@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > A current (non-optimal) solution to the parent-child problem is to keep > the node structure around and chuck the text-only leaf data once it has > been rendered. If the node structure is heavy, though, it still > presents a memory burden. Sibling selectors present a similar problem, > compounded by the fact that you can't get rid of the siblings (or some > reduced cache of their presence) until you've handled the last one. > Think: "<body><p>blah</p><p>blah</p><p>blah</p>...<p>blah</p></body>" That sounds like O(log n) to me, which isn't what I would call expensive. With a tree that is 4 levels deep, with 4 nodes at each level, that is 511 nodes, of which only 17 would have to be kept open at the worst moment. With a 10*10 tree with O(100,000,000,000) nodes, only O(100) would have to be kept open at the worst moment. Steven
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 14:02:13 UTC