Subject: Re: Netscape Support for XSL - client vs server rant From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 16:10:04 +0800 |
Matt Sergeant wrote: > > I'll go out on a limb here, and (to mix my metaphors) will probably be > > shot down in flames, but it could be said that the concentration we see > > on server-based solutions is not just making up for the dodgy support > > currently available in client browsers, but actually reactionary against > > the fact that the MS integrated model is actually a Good Thing [TM] and > > some folk are loathe to admit it. > > It's not reactionary at all - but in fact a stepping stone. Certainly > AxKit is. Sadly Cocoon is broken by default in this respect, but that's > another matter. With AxKit I explicitly have given developers the chance > of writing a "Passthru" plugin, so that they can detect browsers which are > XSL aware and send pure XML. For people not so lucky the plugin doesn't > activite it's passthru flag and they get XML transformed on the server. Excuse me for being an e-diot, but what do you mean by "Cocoon is broken by default..."? Especially since the next line is; "I explicitly have given the developers the chance of writing a PassThru plugin..." First; "Passthru" is easily takencare of with three lines of XSL code. No? Also, You can in Cocoon define a non-processing pipeline, without coding. Secondly; If Cocoon requires the 'developer' to write a plugin, it is broken by default, while AxKit has that particular 'feature' ?? I don't get your reasoning and hostility towards Cocoon, which in my oppinion is a product with real ambitious goals, and not a tinker toy. Niclas XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Netscape Support for XSL - clie, Dan Morrison | Thread | Re: Netscape Support for XSL - clie, Matt Sergeant |
Re: Server-side. Performance Re: Ne, Matt Sergeant | Date | Re: Netscape Support for XSL - clie, Matt Sergeant |
Month |