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

["M. David Peterson" <m.david@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:48:26 -0700, Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx>  
wrote:

> 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.

I had wanted to get more deeply involved in this discussion earlier, but  
time didn't allow.  That said, while I agree with most of your PRO/CON  
list, there are some techniques that can be combined to bring the best of  
both worlds to the equation.

A good portion of you are already aware of this site, but for those who  
are not, if you view source after visiting http://browserbasedxml.com/ in  
IE, Moz/Fx, and/or Safari** you should be able figure out how you can  
minimize the resources on both the client and server using client-side  
XSLT to initialize a page with the browser specific JS to ensure the  
greatest possible overall performance on a per-browser basis, while at the  
same time require the server to do nothing but handle requests for static  
files as they relate to each browser, as determined by the browser  
itself.  See [1,2] for more a more detailed overview.

[1] http://www.xsltblog.com/archives/2005/12/finally_someone_1.html
[2]  
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/07/no_sign_of_document_function_b.html

** will break in Opera due to the lack of support for the document()  
function, something that both myself, and many others have beaten to death  
on both this list and elsewhere, and with what seems to be a promising  
future ahead in achieving this functionality, it seems best to just leave  
it alone -- for now

--
/M:D

M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |  
http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155