- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:46:10 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> Even when you're using DOM-recycling, tweaking things inside each >> "component" can cause unnecessary layout and paint dirtying outside of >> it. > > Our DOM recycling designs all use some form of absolute positioning, which > minimizes those issues already. Sure, if you're smart and know what you're doing, you can achieve the same effects. Point is to make this less of a chore/hazard (and while we're at it, throw in a bit stronger isolation than what you can already achieve). Your DOM recycling examples are also far from the only example of isolated components, many of which won't stumble into the common good cases, like your example does. > And the point of DOM recycling is that the > DOM stays relatively small, so whatever unnecessary work happens won't be > serious. > > Containment could still provide some benefits in some situations, but it > doesn't seem like the big win I originally thought. I'd like to allow people to write pages without having to use advanced methods like that when possible, and helping them help the UA is part of that. DOM recycling is a very useful technique, but it's also not needed unless you're doing a fairly large infinite scroll; plenty of moderate-sized cases should be able to be handled by simply spewing the DOM into the page. Explicit flags like 'contain' will help with this, as will all of our continuing work on increasing the efficiency of our implementations. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 06:46:58 UTC