> On my machine, the DOM version takes at least 10 times longer than the > HTML version.
Sorry, forgot to say: On Firefox 3 and IE7, using Windows XP. (Didn't matter whether Firebug was enabled or not.) -- T.J. :-) On Jan 19, 11:18 am, "T.J. Crowder" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Manfred, > > No worries, glad that helped. > > > At the moment I have a little problem with the images width. > > It seems that IE have a problem with the img attribute width=80px. > > You mean the "width" attribute on an "img" element? If so, don't put > the "px" on, that's a CSS thing (since CSS supports other units of > measure) whereas the "width" attribute on the element is an old- > fashioned HTML thing (that doesn't). So it's either the old HTML > attribute: > > <img src='...' width='80' /> > > or CSS: > > <img src='...' style='width: 80px' /> > > or of course use CSS in a stylsheet. > > > When I fixed this problem I will try your suggestion about the table > > performance. > > Here's an example:http://pastie.org/364518 > > On my machine, the DOM version takes at least 10 times longer than the > HTML version. This seems surprising at first given that you're > building up a string that the browser just has to interpret; but if > you think in terms of the browser being specifically designed and > optimised for doing exactly that (reading HTML, setting up its > internal data structures), it actually kind of makes sense. Hopefully > over time browsers will make their mapping of the DOM onto their > internal structures faster... > > FWIW, > -- > T.J. Crowder > tj / crowder software / com > Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available > > On Jan 19, 9:17 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > Hello T.J., > > > thanks for supporting me. > > > Regards > > Manfred > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: "T.J. Crowder" <[email protected]> > > > Gesendet: So. 18.01.09 (11:59) > > > An: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" > > > (...) > > > Most browsers will tolerate it if you don't do that > > > with > > > literal HTML (they insert the TBODY for you when parsing), but > > > perhaps > > > IE isn't doing that when you go straight to the DOM and build things > > > up yourself. Easy enough to try it and see if that's what's wrong. > > > You gave me the right tip. > > TBody was missing in IE. > > > > BTW, FWIW, if this is a really big table, you _may_ find that you get > > > better performance building up an HTML string and then letting the > > > browser interpret the string (you can put a div where you want the > > > table to be, then use Element#update on the div and pass in the > > > string). Browsers are really optimized around parsing HTML and > > > building up the necessary internal structures, whereas their DOM > > > access methods can be markedly slower. Depends on the browser and > > > version. And again, if the table is small, it doesn't matter. > > > At the moment I have a little problem with the images width. > > It seems that IE have a problem with the img attribute width=80px. > > When I fixed this problem I will try your suggestion about the table > > performance. > > > At the moment I didn't understand what you mean. > > It is possible that you can give me an example? > > > Regards > > Manfred > > > Gesendet von freenetMail- > > Mehr als nur eine > > E-Mail-Adressehttp://email.freenet.de/dienste/emailoffice/produktuebersicht/basic/m... > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
