Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-ID: <2032755.yFNCssulJW@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:58:09 +0100
User-Agent: KNode/4.11.5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v
Face: 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
Subject: Re: Reversing the rows of a table ??
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
References: <bnkj72FqrjaU1@mid.individual.net> <6ecd1d1a-8bd0-4c4f-8f38-c5d6ff8e012a@googlegroups.com> <bnkl7sFr7tdU1@mid.individual.net> <e9d2a9ad-89b7-4ade-9404-85d724dfa252@googlegroups.com> <2779103.sO63zRiCyQ@PointedEars.de> <f01b8aa7-955d-4b55-b6f7-5795dd7b8d95@googlegroups.com> <1437763.yZijEUq800@PointedEars.de> <bnmc6tF7msaU1@mid.individual.net> <XnsA2E6DDBFF55CFeejj99@194.109.133.133> <XnsA2E6E664BA33Feejj99@194.109.133.133> <5316bb17$0$9517$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <3429820.aJejIuaNvK@PointedEars.de> <53181571$0$6670$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Mar 2014 10:58:11 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9425a475.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=aXmCaXe>JOhfF8a^:6>b7eic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRankgeX?EC@@`:B3KFXJVRebDZm8W4\YJNlYUVHKH;GI^gE9g_8T=V`hf6a7W\jWXiQn
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:23435

Christian Winter wrote:

> Am 05.03.2014 16:42, schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Christian Winter wrote:
>>> the more idiomatic appendChild?
>> More importantly, why remove the child node in the first place?
> 
> And let's not forget about triggering reflows. On limited hardware
> there may be a noticeable difference between doing the resorting
> on a visible tbody, which (depending on browser implementation)
> may trigger up to 2 * (rowcount - 1) page reflows, and working on a
> document fragment, which will mean only two reflows (when removing
> and re-appending the tbody). This is, admittedly, not going to be a
> problem with the OP's 20 rows, but I feel it should be mentioned.

Non sequitur, see <news:5099043.qCXR8o4yzN@PointedEars.de>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.