W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Proposal: parent selectors

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:28:40 -0500
Message-ID: <4B588EC8.1010609@mit.edu>
To: Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/21/10 12:11 PM, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> When the DOM changes, the UA still has to rerender everything below
> _and_ above the changed elements.

That's not true at all.  It has to rerender things that changed.  These 
are usually quite limited in scope.

The problem with :has is that the process of determining what things 
have changed can become very very expensive.

> Often, an element has to look at all
> its descendant to determine things such as its dimensions

With :has the issue is having to potentially look at every single thing 
in the document, not just descendants of the thing that changed...

This is all a solvable problem, in theory.  One could restrict the 
performance hit to pages that use :has, at cost in code complexity (and 
unexplained performance degradation if someone adds a :has selector). 
One could pay a significant cost in memory and code complexity to make 
the process faster, at the obvious expense of performance and memory 
usage in general.

In practice, no one has figured out a sane way to do it yet.  It'd be 
really nice to have; everyone agrees with that.  The problem is the how.

 > I don't think this would be TOO much of a hit, would it?

Pretty much anything that involves spending more than 10ms on a set of 
DOM mutation is a hit, right (since it's directly detectable from script 
as a framerate fall)?

Just for reference, redoing selector matching on, say, the html5 
single-page spec (which has a lot of nodes, but not exactly a lot of 
rules) takes on the order of 700ms in current Gecko trunk.  Based on my 
profiles, the Webkit numbes are comparable.

On gmail, it takes about 10-20ms over here.   On google reader it takes 
about 15-30ms.  On the slashdot front page it takes about 20-40ms.  On 
the nytimes.com front page, 20-40ms.

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 17:29:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:42 UTC