Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in browsers, was: Re [xsl] XHTML html validation

[Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx>]

Manfred Staudinger wrote:
> Its available in most modern browsers, it has no known security 
> issues, it
> is working independent of browser settings, it runs before any JS, it 
> provides
> screen-reader compatibility - this in _addition_ to the JS triggered
> transformations

This is only partially so. But instead of this discussion, I tried to 
move it upwards a little to show the pros and cons of either.

> What I want to compare is:     PI + JS transformations vs. JS 
> transformations

There is no use in that, because PI+JS vs JS == PI.
By comparing PI vs JS alone, one can decide to either combine the 
techniques or not.

On the PROS side for PI (partially copied from Manfred):
- less security problems than with Javascript,
- overall easier to implement
- easy to understand and follow
- no javascript needed to get it working

On the CONS side for PI
- can be a bit hard to setup the non-standard PI instruction for one 
browser and the standard PI instruction with correct IANA mimetypes for 
the other, if you bother at all for this (other browsers allow the 
IE-only erroneous declaration)
- cannot serve the xml as text/xml anymore, IE expects text/html 
(perhaps others?) or it shows the content.
- no way to pass in parameters
- heavy load when used to fill IFrames (each IFrame is internally a new 
browser window), which makes it not ideal to build a page out of tiles 
or snippets.



Of course, if you can without client side transformations, it is even 
better.

-- Abel