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

Subject: RE: [xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. html and the world
From: "Amir Yiron" <amir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:37:22 +0200
I agree with you, Daniel. It's not a black & white question.
It depends in many parameters.
For example, the use of xml/xslt could save a lot of traffic in the net if
your final HTML shows a large table - because the XML has only the pure data
used for every row, and the graphic representation of a row (which is usually
much larger than the pure data) is given once in XSLT, and not duplicated for
every row as in HTML...

b.t.w. as you mention that,
how would you instruct IE6 to cache certain files (say xslt)?
I made some play with HTTP header fields, but failed...

-- Amir

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Joshua [mailto:daniel.joshua@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:06 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [xsl] 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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Canfield [mailto:joshcanfield@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 19 August, 2004 1:45 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. html and the world

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

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

Current Thread