Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance improvements #20

Closed
dpvc opened this issue Nov 9, 2010 · 5 comments
Closed

Performance improvements #20

dpvc opened this issue Nov 9, 2010 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@dpvc
Copy link
Member

dpvc commented Nov 9, 2010

I've made a performance branch of my fork that includes two updates: the reduced processUpdateTime for better responsiveness, and the separate class for during the typesetting that IE can use to set position:relative to get measurements right.

See dpvc@f86e817
and dpvc@1e4efb3 for details.

Davide

@dpvc
Copy link
Member Author

dpvc commented Nov 9, 2010

This is a duplicate of issue #17.

@shogun70
Copy link
Contributor

Regarding the separate class for typesetting, the generated CSS rule:
.MathJax .MathJax_Processing span { position: relative; }
will never apply to anything, as the both those classes are on the one element.
Consequently this change makes the default position style to be "static" during and after processing.
Since "static" is the default anyway, we could remove the rule completely (assuming some diligent testing doesn't reveal rendering errors).

@dpvc
Copy link
Member Author

dpvc commented Nov 10, 2010

OK, I've done more testing and I still can't find what the width problem was that the relative position was supposed to fix. It could be that a later change took care of it in another way (I'm afraid I can't keep track of all the IE bugs I've had to work around).

I removed the processing class. Anything else need changing?

@shogun70
Copy link
Contributor

It would be good to have a test page where processUpdateTime is configurable, but I can't see any reason these shouldn't be pushed up now. So I'll do that ASAP.

@dpvc
Copy link
Member Author

dpvc commented Nov 11, 2010

OK, I think I have merged this in. (I'm still a little awkward with git, so I'm not sure I did it in the most efficient way, but the changes are now there.) So I'm closing the issue.

This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants