Subject: RE: [xsl] Q on incremental processing and count() From: "Andrew Welch" <awelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:57:06 -0000 |
Hi, If you are having problems with slow tables in IE, try using spans and divs instead - IE is able to draw these much more quickly. For example: <table> becomes <div> <tr> becomes <div> <td> becomes <span> You will need to do a little work to sort out the column widths, but that will depend on your setup. (although, really, a 200 item table shouldnt cause too many problems) cheers andrew -----Original Message----- From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Enke Michael Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:31 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] Q on incremental processing and count() Joerg Heinicke wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > it's not clear what you want to do. Your variables are ok, no problems to > see. You only can shorten them: > > <xsl:variable name="col-num" select="10"/> > > <xsl:variable name="col-num" select="count(thead/th-row)"/> > > <xsl:variable name="col-num" select="count(thead[1]/th-row)"/> > > Between the two last declarations there should be no difference, because of > your XML. > > But what exactly is the problem? What's the result you get and you expect? > What's the context of the variable declaration? > > Regards, > > Joerg > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list My problem is the execution speed. I have a large table (200 entries) and split them into small tables (per table 20 entries, every subtable with the same table header). My problem is: The browser gets the result if all 200 entries are processed in the memory! Arrrrgggg... But I expected to see the tables as they come out of the database. Because for investigating I made it so, that every item needs half a second to be generated. I expected to see the first sub table after 20*0.5 seconds, the second table after 2*20*0.5 seconds and so on. But actually I see all tables not before 200*0.5 seconds :-( If I remove the count() and ...following-sibling... I lost my table structure but I can see how the values come out as they were produced. Regards, Michael XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Q on incremental processi, Enke Michael | Thread | Re: [xsl] Q on incremental processi, Enke Michael |
[xsl] duplicate id's, Gertjan Assies | Date | Re: [xsl] duplicate id's, Markus Spath |
Month |