[Greasemonkey] Turnabout: More Greasemonkey for IE

[chris feldmann]

And to go back to this, I guess I mean most XPath queries (no all: most) 
could be translated to a getElementsByTagName or getELementById combined 
with another conditional, so is the DOM-walk you're talking about here just 
referring to those first two getElementBy's? Does that really take a long 
time? You do that then parse against a simple argument: 

a = getElementByTHIS; 
for (i; i < a.lenght i++){


On 6/1/05, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/31/05, chris feldmann <cfeldmann at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about the possiblility of an XPath translation layer? Most XPath
> > queries I've seen (and written) for greasemonkey are "ACTIVE QUERY,
> > document, null, standard format, null." Base functionality could be
> > replicated with (cringe) regular expressions on the query, am I wrong? 
> The
> > ability to plug in greasemonkey scripts without rewrite would be 
> facilitated
> > greatly if minor DOM implementation differences could be accounted for
> > without having to think about entirely unsupported things in IE such as
> > XPath.
> >
> 
> I think most XPath queries could be translated into DOM tree walks,
> except that they won't work on MSHTML, due to the cycles Aaron
> mentioned earlier.
> 
> The JS XPath implementation which GreasemonkIE is very slow; I don't
> have benchmarks, but maybe 100 times slower than FF's built-in XPath.
> 
> I'd be surprised if that implementation isn't using tree walks...
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mozdev.org/pipermail/greasemonkey/attachments/20050601/64ab1b12/attachment.htm