On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:00 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: >> So it looks to me like in practice Element.getElementById could be quite a >> bit faster than the equivalent querySelector call, for both the in-tree case >> (where both can avoid walking the tree) and the out-of-tree case (where both >> need to walk the tree). >> >> Food for thought. > > So do you think we should add getElementById() to ParentNode in DOM? Why not to Element? > It seems the advantages are that we can optimize it better than > querySelector() because there is no selector parsing. And because > there is no selector parsing, you can simply pass the value of an > element's id attribute rather than escaping said value using CSS > escape rules. > > What it seems we lack is a clear need for either, but if the cost of > implementing it is low, maybe it's worth it? Because of HTMLCollection's name getter, all major browsers must be capable of a id+name lookup at every element (since Element has getElementsByTagName that returns a HTMLCollection). - R. Niwa