[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:38:47 -0500, Manfred Staudinger <manfred.staudinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the main reasons I don't use PIs is because you can't cache the processor object. Each time you view a page the XSL has to be parsed and made into a processor object.
Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in browsers, was: Re [xsl] XHTML html validation
Subject: Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in browsers, was: Re [xsl] XHTML html validation From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:21:33 -0500 |
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:38:47 -0500, Manfred Staudinger <manfred.staudinger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
False.Using a PI involves the same ActiveX control [as for javascript invoked transformations]
No popup in case of iframe.not popups about ActiveX, but instead, maybe, popups about cross-frame scripting
I could drag on about the unmanageability of using PIs, its lack of parameter passing possibilities, its complete lack of flexibility,You should consider PIs not instead, but in addition to the javascript invoked transformation. This way you will gain additional flexibility!
One of the main reasons I don't use PIs is because you can't cache the processor object. Each time you view a page the XSL has to be parsed and made into a processor object.
best, -Rob
But like I said, I could go on and on, but if you know all the drawbacksYou seem not to have explored this path up to now, as many of your arguments
and if you are willing to pay the extra effort involved, it is quite a stable
and save path to go
rely on general considerations, not on concrete experience.
Manfred
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in brows, Manfred Staudinger | Thread | Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in brows, Abel Braaksma |
Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in brows, Manfred Staudinger | Date | Re: [xsl] Using xsl:output in brows, Abel Braaksma |
Month |
Keywords