Subject: Re: [xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. html and the world From: Josh Canfield <joshcanfield@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:44:44 -0700 |
Performance wise you can't get much faster than feeding up a static html file... 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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. html , IceT | Thread | RE: [xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. h, Daniel Joshua |
[xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. html , IceT | Date | RE: [xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. h, Daniel Joshua |
Month |