Alright, but what is the difference between "document" and
"el.ownerDocument"? I tested:
alert(document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].ownerDocument == document);
And it returns true... which are the cases where this may return false?
Diogo
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's what I was sort of suggesting, el.ownerDocument.documentElement,
> that is.
>
> As someone said (don't recall and don't wanna read up), good browsers
> (w3) do set ownerDocument to null when the node is outside any
> document.
>
> Assuming that's true:
>
> $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> var elem = this[0],
> doc = el && el.ownerDocument && el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
>
> return !!doc && (doc.contains ?
> doc.contains(el)
> : !!(doc.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16)
> );
> };
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM, ricardobeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why not simplify?
> >
> > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> > var el=this[0];
> > if (!el) return false;
> > var doc = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> > return (doc.contains)
> > ? doc.contains(el)
> > : !!(doc.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> > };
> >
> > 36ms vs 12ms for Diogo's 'inDOM3Optimized', but keeps it compatible
> > with other 'document' contexts. That's 1000 iterations, I don't see
> > anyone having thousands of elements that he doesn't know if are in the
> > DOM or not. It works in all target browsers, so the parentNode
> > fallback is not needed.
> >
> > Ariel, is there any situation where a node has no ownerDocument/
> > documentElement property?
> >
> > - ricardo
> >
> > On Dec 3, 11:21 am, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Those functions relying on $('html') wouldn't work for xml or some
> >> other special kind of document (namespaced tagnames?).
> >>
> >> I think it is indeed better to rely on the documentElement of the
> >> ownerDocument (if the latter exists else just false).
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Diego, if I can recall, I already tested el.ownerDocument and, in IE6,
> >> > it always returned true in Boolean test, even if the element was
> removed.
> >>
> >> > The "bifurcated" implementation was tested in all browsers with
> success
> >> > (except for FF2, which I didn't have in my machine at the time): FF3,
> >> > IE6, IE7, Safari 3.1.2 and Opera 9.62.
> >>
> >> > About the method name, it's a good point... ok by me to change it to
> >> > "isOrphan" and invert the return from the past implementation...
> >>
> >> > I also updated the implementations and testing in the benchmark,
> putting
> >> > a "return false" if no element is false (correcting, thus, the bugs of
> >> > when the elements were removed from DOM) and setting $('#level10') to
> a
> >> > variable (in the "deep-level" testing), thus eliminating the need for
> a
> >> > new traversal in every loop iteration. Here they are:
> >>
> >> > ----- IMPLEMENTATIONS:
> >>
> >> > $.fn.inDOM1 = function() {
> >> > return !!$(this).parents('html').length;
> >> > };
> >>
> >> > $.fn.inDOM2 = function() {
> >> > var el = this[0];
> >> > if (!el) return false;
> >> > while (el.parentNode) el = el.parentNode;
> >> > return el.nodeType == 9;
> >> > };
> >>
> >> > $.fn.inDOM3 = function() {
> >> > var el = this[0];
> >> > if (!el) return false;
> >> > var html = $('html').get(0);
> >> > return html.contains ?
> >> > html != el && html.contains(el) :
> >> > !!(html.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >> > };
> >>
> >> > var docEl = document.documentElement;
> >> > $.fn.inDOM3Optimized = docEl.contains ?
> >> > function() {
> >> > var el = this[0];
> >> > if (!el) return false;
> >> > return docEl != el && docEl.contains(el);
> >> > } :
> >> > function() {
> >> > var el = this[0];
> >> > if (!el) return false;
> >> > return !!(docEl.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >> > };
> >>
> >> > --- PERFORMANCE RESULTS:
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM1: parents("html") =====
> >> > start: 1228270728766 ms
> >> > end: 1228270729258 ms
> >> > difference: 492 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM2: parentNode =====
> >> > start: 1228270729274 ms
> >> > end: 1228270729437 ms
> >> > difference: 163 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM3: html.contains() =====
> >> > start: 1228270729450 ms
> >> > end: 1228270729808 ms
> >> > difference: 358 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM3Optimized: html.contains() =====
> >> > start: 1228270729821 ms
> >> > end: 1228270729911 ms
> >> > difference: 90 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM2: traversing 10 levels =====
> >> > start: 1228270729924 ms
> >> > end: 1228270730161 ms
> >> > difference: 237 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM3Optimized: traversing 10 levels =====
> >> > start: 1228270730173 ms
> >> > end: 1228270730184 ms
> >> > difference: 11 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM2: after removal =====
> >> > start: 1228270730198 ms
> >> > end: 1228270730382 ms
> >> > difference: 184 ms
> >>
> >> > ===== inDOM3Optimized: after removal =====
> >> > start: 1228270730395 ms
> >> > end: 1228270730405 ms
> >> > difference: 10 ms
> >>
> >> > Note: inDOM2 is the impl. using parentNode, and inDOM3 is the one
> using
> >> > special methods ("bifurcated code").
> >> > Note 2: the speed in "inDOM3Optimized" changed a lot just because I
> >> > setted $('level10') to a variable before all the tests. This
> strengthens
> >> > the performance reason to favor the "bifurcated code" implementation.
> ;-)
> >>
> >> > If everybody agrees with the method name change (to "isOrphan"), which
> >> > is OK by me, I can do it in the benchmarks to keep consistency with a
> >> > possible future version of jQuery.
> >>
> >> > Diogo
> >>
> >> > Diego Perini escreveu:
> >> >> John,
> >> >> I believe there is an error, probably you meant:
> >>
> >> >> $.fn.inDOM = document.documentElement.contains ?
> >> >> function() {
> >> >> var el = this[0], root = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> >> >> return root !== el && root.contains(el);
> >> >> } :
> >> >> function() {
> >> >> var el = this[0];
> >> >> return !!
> >> >> (el.ownerDocument.documentElement.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >> >> };
> >>
> >> >> or if you prefer in the declaration "var el = this[0].ownerDocument".
> >>
> >> >> As I already said, the native methods are the fastest, no doubt, but
> >> >> the standalone version is still to be considered alone or combined.
> >>
> >> >> However, I believe we should test the following minor implications if
> >> >> deemed important:
> >>
> >> >> - all target browser implementing one of the two native methods ?
> >> >> - all target browser having an "element.ownerDocument" ?
> >>
> >> >> And for the function name I see "isOrphan/isOrphanNode" more adequate
> >> >> since if we can do:
> >>
> >> >> var node = document.createElement("div");
> >>
> >> >> that node seems to me is already in the DOM, explicitly the one
> >> >> attached to "document" through the "ownerDocument" DOM property, the
> >> >> fact is that the node is not yet attached to the rendered tree, thus
> a
> >> >> node without a parent ancestor, that may be a simple element a
> >> >> DOMFragment or even a new Image() instance.
> >>
> >> >> I further suggest to split this and implement "contains" or such in
> >> >> jQuery on the track of what you wrote about this on your blog and
> move
> >> >> the conditional there so this will simply remain:
> >>
> >> >> function() {
> >> >> var el = this[0], root = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> >> >> return root !== el && root.contains(el);
> >> >> }
> >>
> >> >> no branches there. They will be in the generic "contains" method
> (very
> >> >> useful...). In that method you could add the parent traversal as fall
> >> >> back.
> >>
> >> >> In this way you add more functionalities to jQuery use the fastest in
> >> >> this OP and keep the code size down to the minimum still covering
> >> >> cross-browser 100%.
> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Diego
> >>
> >> >> On 2 Dic, 17:25, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> Why not just tweak this implementation to be relative? That way you
> >> >>> still get performance but also allow it to work across frames, etc.
> >>
> >> >>> $.fn.inDOM = document.documentElement.contains ?
> >> >>> function() {
> >> >>> var el = this[0], doc = el.documentElement;
> >> >>> return doc !== el && doc.contains(el);
> >> >>> } :
> >> >>> function() {
> >> >>> var el = this[0];
> >> >>> return !!(el.documentElement.compareDocumentPosition(el)
> & 16);
> >> >>> };
> >>
> >> >>> --John
> >>
> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> I'd just save it as a local var
> >>
> >> >>>> var html = document.documentElement;
> >> >>>> $.fn.inDOM = html.contains ?
> >> >>>> function() {
> >> >>>> var el = this[0];
> >> >>>> return html != el && $.html.contains(el);
> >> >>>> } :
> >> >>>> function() {
> >> >>>> var el = this[0];
> >> >>>> return !!(html.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >> >>>> };
> >>
> >> >>>> Does this work reliably on any browser ?
> >> >>>> Note that his doesn't work for any document that is not THE
> document.
> >>
> >> >>>> I think a simple traversal (going up) would do. I'm sorry to spoil
> all
> >> >>>> the researching but no one said this function will be used
> everywhere
> >> >>>> and it needs to be as fast as possible. First it most be effective,
> >> >>>> then efficient.
> >>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Diogo Baeder <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>
> >> >>>>> Guys, the last proposal gave me about 140ms ~ 150ms within 1000
> method
> >> >>>>> calls, but here's something that gave me about 80ms ~ 90ms:
> >>
> >> >>>>> $.htmlEl = $('html').get(0);
> >> >>>>> $.fn.inDOM = $.htmlEl.contains ?
> >> >>>>> function() {
> >> >>>>> var el = this[0];
> >> >>>>> return $.htmlEl != el && $.htmlEl.contains(el);
> >> >>>>> } :
> >> >>>>> function() {
> >> >>>>> var el = this[0];
> >> >>>>> return !!($.htmlEl.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >> >>>>> };
> >>
> >> >>>>> What do you think of it? A little bit more of coding, but
> considerably
> >> >>>>> faster... despite someone would rarely make so much calls to this
> method, I
> >> >>>>> think...
> >>
> >> >>>>> Diogo
> >>
> >> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Diego Perini <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>>> Diogo,
> >>
> >> >>>>>> On 1 Dic, 21:56, "Diogo Baeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>>>> Thank you, guys... I tried the last method as
> implemented/adapted by
> >> >>>>>>> Diego,
> >> >>>>>>> and it works! :-)
> >>
> >> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, neither "contains" nor "compareDocumentPosition"
> are
> >> >>>>>>> being
> >> >>>>>>> recognized as methods for the "document" node in IE6 or 7, as
> you can
> >> >>>>>>> test
> >> >>>>>>> yourselves:
> >>
> >> >>>>>>> alert(document.contains);
> >> >>>>>>> alert(window.contains);
> >> >>>>>>> alert(document.compareDocumentPosition);
> >> >>>>>>> alert(window.compareDocumentPosition);
> >>
> >> >>>>>>> Any ideas why these didn't work for me?
> >>
> >> >>>>>> The Microsoft "contains" method does not exists for the document
> >> >>>>>> object (at least in the docs). Maybe because it is not an element
> >> >>>>>> (nodeType == 1).
> >>
> >> >>>>>> Firefox and Opera implement the "compareDocumentPosition" method,
> also
> >> >>>>>> they made it a method of the "document" itself.
> >>
> >> >>>>>> Opera implements both "compareDocumentPosition" and "contains",
> Safari
> >> >>>>>> only has "contains" again not on the "document".
> >>
> >> >>>>>> The conclusion is that the implementations of
> "compareDocumentPosition
> >> >>>>>> ()" and "contains()" disagree on this specific fact.
> >>
> >> >>>>>> At this point, given the messed up implementations, better being
> >> >>>>>> independent from them both and go for the traversal.
> >>
> >> >>>>>> It is also much shorter and really cross-browser...
> >>
> >> >>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>> Diego
> >>
> >> >>>>>>> Diogo
> >>
> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Diego Perini
> >> >>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> read more ยป
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ariel Flesler
> http://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> >
>
--
Diogo Baeder
http://www.diogobaeder.com.br
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
