- From: Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:26:47 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK4xKXm6bByoz46+diKSLbaM3Uj+6rUpNoaO4Hfw5mM2WsxfQQ@mail.gmail.com>
This then ends up being super-complex and unstable. I'll explain further > below. > Versioning algorithms works for the years perfectly in RDBMS. Without any troubles with a stability and without super complicity. It's not new thing at all. > This suggestion, tho, is different - it's a much "tighter" loop, > detectable as soon as layout as performed. This means that, if we > want a consistent page, we have to go back and recalculate styles as > soon as we do layout, before we even get to paint anything. Loops > here are equivalent to a infinite loop in JS code - it prevents the > browser from doing anything unless you kill the page. > I'm not a junior in CS ;) I understand you and your point of view very well. > > So, you might say, let's break the loop! :hover actually gets this > treatment too - browsers will usually not re-check :hover styles until > the cursor actually moves; this prevents pages from wiggling > underneath you when you're just scrolling with a mousewheel or > touchpad, and also happens to partially defeat the :hover loop - once > your mouse stops it freezes on either "hovering" or "not hovering", > somewhat arbitrarily. > > We also don't need to check :in-view statements every time. > For in-view styling, we theoretically have to re-check any time *any* > styling is updated *anywhere* on the page, in case the new styling > moved or resized the element in question. > Theoretically. All time re-checking is not needed. Think about it like it is an animation keyframe. Does an animation re-painting and rearrangement hell? Think no. Produces it loops? No. Why? Because it's finite process in one period of time. -- s0rr0w
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 20:27:22 UTC