Re: Speed: xsl with xml vs. html and the world

Performance wise you can't get much faster than feeding up a static html file...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:52:51 -0300, IceT <icetbr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My lastest messages in this list has remembered me of this question. I
> belive it may have already be discussed here, but could someone please
> explain to me a little bit of the state of the art of the creation of
> webpages?
> 
> I mean, specially regarding xml and xsl. Which is better (speedwise at
> least): to publish an xml file to be rendered with an xsl or to
> preprocess it and generate an html file to be used? I believe html is
> faster, although not dynamic. But there is many ways to add dynamic code
> to html. So wich is the way to go? Is the answer related to the size of
> the page?
> 
> Also, if I were to preprocess my xml + xsl files, I could use as well
> xslt 2.0, because I wouldn't need to worry about incompabilities.
> 
> thanks