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
--+------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--+--