Well I am not too sure on that...
If by speed you mean internet bandwidth (hence file size), then maybe
depending on the situation serving a XML (with data only) + XSL (with
presentation instructions) might be better, especially if the template is
used often by other pages that would have cached the XSL.
Regards,
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Canfield [mailto:joshcanfield(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, 19 August, 2004 1:45 PM
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [xsl] Speed: xsl with xml vs. html and the world
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(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com(_dot_)br>
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