On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 01:28, Curt Zirzow wrote: > Ray Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 1. How efficient is to use XML+XSLT solution? Does it > > > add processing overhead to the system? > > > > The efficientcy is relative to many factors, however I can stress this. > > The style sheets can be cached client side and then only xml data can be > > sent to the user. This reduces bandwidth and allows the transformation > > to be done on the client side instead of server side. Also not that xml > > + xslt transformations can be done server side. I usually do browser > > checks to determine if the browser is capable of handling xml+xslt > > transformations: if so then i send the files. Now if the browser is old > > or has issues (i.e. Internet explorer 5.5) then i can do the > > transformation server side and send html. Also note that you can set up > > a caching system at this point. > > I opened the page with Opera I was doing in XML+XSLT and my page > disappeard :( Back to browscap days... i thought we were done with > that.
Not sure how opera handles xml + xslt transformation. Not sure about the xml parser that it has. > > > > If the transformation is done server side then yes you have that over > > head. However, if you are only serving up xml files and xslt files (part > > of the time on xslt) then u are reducing server load. > > What I'm afraid of is that xslt will have the same problem that html had > with the browser wars. excpecially since all layout and rendering is > done based on what the client's software thinks. To bad not ever browser supports the w3c standards. -- BigDog -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
