That sucks! :< Oh well. XD Do you think it would very costly to implement the collapse (or cut) in the first place? Strictly from an economical pov, less so a "is this evil?" perspective. Because if it's too costly, then the discussion can just kind of stop right there, right?
~kali On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Emily Ravenwood <[email protected]> wrote: > Usually, with expand-collapse, the content has actually all been loaded > already--it's just the display that's affected. > > --ER > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Here's another thing to consider, I think. Would it be computationally >> less expensive for dw to auto-collapse/cut entries that exceed a certain >> length in order to display it on an flist? In which case wouldn't dw want >> to do this for economical reasons? Maybe it should be a partial-collapse, >> so you can still get an idea of what might be going on, and then an expand >> button to see the cuts "as the poster intended", and then you'd be >> navigating to the post to see what's under the cuts, anyway. Or is the >> re-expand function costlier than what can be saved resource-wise by the >> initial collapse? (or is the initial collapse costly because it needs to >> evaluate each post? XD) >> ~kali, laggy because she's reading from digest (ppl are chattery today!) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dw-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
