RE: <xsl:stylesheet xmlns...
>> >> >Besides, that often requires to transfer more data. >> >> >> >> Depends on the application >> > >> >That is why I use "often". >> >> I dispute that. It depends on what you send down the line. Obviously you >> wouldn't send a whole SQL database to a client to do a query. >You send the >> results. If the results consist of the minimum amount of data then the >> transform will *always* produce more output than input if you are >> transforming to html (transforming to text less). Add cacheing into the >> equation and client-side transformation will *always* produce less line >> traffic. > >You do not know my but I can assure I am not SO dumb. I made my >measurements >by only sending the necessary XML data. So why say more >There is also the overhead associated with fetching 2 documents (XML, XSL) >instead of one (HTML). In most cases I focused on it only saves traffic if >the browser caches the XSLT. Um no! think of an xslt and an xml snipped to the limit for brevity <xsl:template match="row"> <tr><td><xsl:value-of select="c" /></td></tr> </xsl:template> <row> <c>xxxxx</c> <c>yyyyyy</c> for another 3000 </row> >Now, that being an advantage depends on the nature of the site. It only >works better if the template caching is used often enough. > No not even then! >There are NO absolute rules. One has to analyse case by case. > Yup! >And there is still the issue of having to work with browsers like Netscape, >Opera, older Internet Explorer versions and so on. > And that is a red herring too. I can't browse most stuff on my WAP phone. Did Philips(crosshead) think of that when they produced + screws? Was it a lockin? Who knows. Who cares. You use the right tool for the right job. I am agnostic when it comes to browsers. I am looking forward to ns v6. Check the other parts of my site I bend over backwards to accomodate all of them. >> > >> >> >IMHO, server side transformations rule. >> >> >> >> Are you selling hardware too? >> > >> >I agree that it might be different in an Intranet scenario. >> > >> Slightly but not much. > >Much. In an Intranet there is more control over the used browser and there >is not so much compatibility concerns. You also tend to know the use cases >better. Yeh but by now most developers know the internet. We hope > >> >> >(Is hardware that expensive these days that I would get a profit form >> >preaching this??? >> >=:o) > >This was an irony. Noticed the smiley? > >> Possibly if you are running a data center. The cost of hardware >> is miniscule >> compared to the cost of support staff. > >And of development staff. Yup! et al. > >> Throw more hardware at it is just not an answer to badly designed >> applications as many people are aware. > >Correct, but some people are also aware that throwing more hardware in a >concious and controlled way can be a valid strategy to save development >effort and have faster results. True but now we are talking a finesse and that wasn't the point! > >> I won't even tell you what I think of preachers. > >Again, noticed the irony? Yeh but even a smile doesn't cover the smell of bullshit. Ciao Chris XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format