'for' loop corrected for better performances

[bfontaine]

It's better for performances to write the following:
for (var i=0, len=foo.length; i<len; i++) { /*...*/ }
than
for (var i=0; i<foo.length; i++) { /*...*/ }
We're caching the length of the array in a variable, so Javascript won't have to re-calculate the length every time.

[tommoor]

Makes sense, thanks.

[rslinckx]

This breaks for the second case where you are removing the tag from while iterating over the link collection.
The length being calculated only once at the beginning will cause the loop to go too far if a link gets removed from head.
Fix is simple: use the code before the patch

[bfontaine]

Yes, sorry I didn't see that.