Subject: Re: [xsl] xsl transformations on the client or server for NS6+ From: Rob Rohan <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 02 Jul 2003 09:16:00 -0700 |
yikes! > If you are doing something for > "two important clients" I would recommend using client side > transformations. should read > If you are doing something for > "two important clients" I would recommend using server side > transformations. my bad. Rob On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 08:51, Rob Rohan wrote: > On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 23:19, jim wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Sorry if this question seems basic, but I have two important clients who > > need to support Netscape site visitors. I've been plugging away at this for > > hours reading up on client-side XSL Transformations versus server-side XSL > > Transformations. One article provided me with a JavaScript that it says > > works in IE 6+ and NS 6+/Mozilla 1.2+ at > > http://www.ebargoon.ca/sell/ebhtml.asp but it didn't work for me on > > Netscape. I even upgraded to Netscape 7.1 just to triple-check but no such > > luck. I've been reading up on "JavaScript/XSLT Bindings" at > > http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/xslt-js/ and did a > > hack-and-paste job of using the bits of JavaScript they provide, but no luck > > on Netscape. My servers don't support ASP so what can I do? There was a > > somewhat related thread posted in 1999 at > > http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199910/msg00626.html with two > > opposing viewpoints, and I'm hoping that in 2003, there's a copy-and-paste > > solution for me either in JavaScript, or even PHP. Again, sorry if you > > think this post is off topic but it's the foundation of getting XSL > > Transformed to XHTML and I could really use some help here. > > > > Thanks kindly! > > > > Jim in Vancouver > I am not really sure what your question is - I assume you are asking if > it is better to do client side transformation vs server side. > > Here is my opinion (this and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee). I > think client side transformations are novel, but not that useful. > Browsers were designed to view html, not do transformations. While xslt > is being added to browsers it seems like it is still too proprietary > right now to use it in a business sense. A bit like dhtml a couple years > ago - some stuff works across all some doesn't. > > Let me state that I have never used client side transformations - I am > only stating what I have seen posted to the list. "It works in MS not in > NS...it works on mozilla but not IE" etc. If you are doing something for > "two important clients" I would recommend using client side > transformations. You have more control over you xslt and xml parsers, > and you only have to worry about cross broswer css, html, dhtml and js > instead of cross browser css, html, dhtml, js, AND xslt. > > > 1. Client Side XSL: > > Pros: JavaScript doesn't rely on type of server > > Cons: Doesn't work in Netscape > xslt doesn't rely on the type of server. If written using standards. > > > > > 2. ASP Server Side XSL: > > Pros: Works in latest IE and Netscape > > Cons: APS Servers Only > > Well, the code you posted only works on an ASP server but xslt is not specific > to ASP. In fact, Coccon (see http://cocoon.apache.org/2.0/) is an xslt server. It > uses xslt instead of vb as it scripting. I posted some items > http://treebeard.sourceforge.net/cfx_treebeard.php that allow xslt to work on > cold fusion, and JSP (actually coldfusion can do xslt by default but it is limited, > and the JSP stuff you can write yourself I just did it for convenience) > > There is my $0.02 (which is worth less then the euro right now :)) > > Cheers, > Rob -- Rob Rohan <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xsl transformations on th, Rob Rohan | Thread | Re: [xsl] xsl transformations on th, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] Dynamic Sort Value Solved, Allistair Crossley | Date | Re: [xsl] xsl transformations on th, David Carlisle |
Month |