- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:19:41 -0700
- To: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Simetrical wrote: > From Boris' last post, I guess the answer to this is that it's a good > deal more complex, although maybe manageably. Every time an element > is added, you might need to recompute style for its immediately > preceding sibling. Of course, if you recompute style for an element > and it turns out that some inheritable property has changed value, you > need to recompute style for all its descendants, which could be a lot. > On the other hand, "foo + bar" recomputes nothing at all. On appends, that's correct. On other mutations, it has to recompute if you put a <foo> in. > "foo:matches(~ bar)" would be worse, because it would require > recomputing style for all preceding siblings. > And "foo:matches( bar)" would be worst of all, because > it could require recomputing style for all *ancestors*, which would > include the root element, and therefore *all* elements. Indeed, modulo some sort of optimization setup. > Am I approximately right here? If I understand the :matches() proposal, yes. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 23:20:26 UTC