Hi, > > Why not using DOM? [...] > > It was just a suggestion on how the code could be improved (and a good > chance to work on my RegExp skills).
That is OK, but in production code I see no point in reeimplementing stuff that you already have with DOM. It is fine while praticing. > Plus it involves a lot less code. If you strip out all the code for the various other ticker-variants and convert the rest to use jQuery, I don't expect the difference to bee too big. You can also reduce the API of my code (no start()-function, but immediate start, have no stop()-function - simply never stop, have no way to changeSpeed()-function, etc. You don't have that in your implementation. To have a fair comparison you would need to add that (or remove it from mine). > I would have thought performance may be a bit better (but probably not > that noticeable) due to using innerHTML rather than DOM manipulation. Well, on the other hand you try to parse the HTML where I simply use the existing DOM. There is also a big difference in the result. Imagine this code: <div id="typewriter"> <h1>asdf asdf asdf</h1> <p style="background-color:yellow"> asdf asdf asdf asdf asdf asdf asdf asdf asdf </p> </div> Your code may generate <h1>asdf asdf asdf</h1> <span style="visibility:hidden"><p style="backgrou</span> as inner HTML. There are two issues with this: 1. the '<' before p is no clean XHTML and 2. you are waiting for the typewriter to go through 35 steps before the content of the p is written out. There is another issue with your code. You take the content for your typewriter from a parameter to your function, where I take the contents of the element that should be the container. With my code people who have JS switched off can read the content - they just miss the fancy typewriter. Christof _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
