Any reason not to use client-side XSL?? (was: Preferred tool for folding XML into HTML)

[Brad Clements]

For many applications, client-side XSL conversion is the best/only way to
go.

For example, I'm developing a "database management" single-page web
application for a client. It loads table data through XML-RPC calls to Zope,
then XSLT to transform the data into HTML on the client, including support
for column sorting, etc.

I've also done this using ADO recordsets in XML format and databinding. But
for this application, read-only tables work best and are faster.

In any case, IE 5 and later does support simple stylesheet transforms and so
does Mozilla. However if you need to use more complicated transforms then
for IE 5 you'll need MSXML3 installed in replace mode, (or IE 6).. Not sure
about Mozilla.

--
Brad Clements, DevNet Sysop 5
Developer Network Sysop Team


"Russell Turpin" <russell_turpin at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a12e538.0201080934.4fadb64 at posting.google.com...
> It seems clear that XSL is the way to go. I have heard that
> Internet Explorer supports client-side style sheets, i.e.,
> your webapp returns the XML with reference to stylesheet,
> and IE will retreive the style sheet and apply it on the
> client side. I haven't read the details of this yet, but it
> seems slick, and raises some other questions:
>
> Wouldn't this be simpler than applying the translation on the
> server side?
>
> Is this standard? Do/will other browsers support this?
>
> Are there disadvantages to applying the style sheet
> client-side?
>
> My thanks to all, for the useful info!




-----=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
 Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!  ==-----