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

Well I am not too sure on that...

If by speed you mean internet bandwidth (hence file size), then maybe
depending on the situation serving a XML (with data only) + XSL (with
presentation instructions) might be better, especially if the template is
used often by other pages that would have cached the XSL.


Regards,
Daniel


-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Canfield [mailto:joshcanfield@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 19 August, 2004 1:45 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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