Actually I was just thinking about this and I'm not positive which is
faster either but I think not using attr would be. And I'm not sure
the speed difference is significant, so take all this with a grain of
salt. :)
It might actually depend on what type of element is being created
too. Some really have to go through the jQuery.clean() function like
an <input type="hidden"/> or a <tr> but a div might be faster to just
do $(document.createElement("div")).attr(...); Again I'm not sure the
speed difference is significant in most cases. These are all just gut
feelings at this point since I haven't done the tests.
David
On Jan 26, 7:17 am, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:13 PM, David Serduke wrote:
>
>
>
> > How about
>
> > $("<input type='hidden'/>").attr({id:"myid",
> > name:"myname"}).val("foo").appendTo(this);
>
> > I think that would work although the way you have it would be faster.
> > Most elements you could just say $("<div/>") to create a new one but
> > in IE the input requires the type be set. So you have to specify the
> > type in the inital jQuery call as shown above.
>
> Hey David,
>
> Very interesting that the way you mention above is not as fast as
> putting in the whole HTML string at once. In our books, Jonathan
> Chaffer and I chose to build new elements the "slower" way --
> with .attr({}) -- to make the code more readable and to keep it closer
> to the "DOM Scripting" ideal, but I hadn't tested comparative speeds,
> assuming that there wouldn't be much of a performance hit.
>
> --Karl
> _________________
> Karl Swedbergwww.englishrules.comwww.learningjquery.com
