Re: why split? [was RE: XSL intent survey]

["Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Think on it this way... I can run XSL transformation on a server, not using
>formatting objects, simply using the transformative part of XSL, delivery
>HTML to the client browser. Given the wide ranging support for HTML 3.2, on
>a practical level I need never worry about the rendering abilities of the
>client.

>
> ...
>
>In short the scenario I describing is en effective replacement for the
>likes of ASP and PHP on the server when dealing with XML. If I can't
>process XML with XSL and get the desired result tree I wanr, then I'm
>pretty much going to stick with an ASP/PHP like option. I suspect that many
>other developers would make a similar choice.


Yes. In fact, there's a second interesting alternative - transfer the XML to
the client, and convert it to there, then give it to the browser. Given the
existing 100% Java XSL processors, this can be done by an applet inside the
browser. If the XML is much smaller then the generated HTML, this trades CPU
cycles on the client for bandwidth - a reasonable tradeoff these days.

Oren.


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list