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

[Cameron Laird]

In article <mailman.1010522352.9999.python-list at python.org>,
Paul Prescod  <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
>Russell Turpin wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>
>Not usually. :(
>
>> Is this standard? Do/will other browsers support this?
>
>Yes, it is somewhat standard. I think that some builds of Mozilla
>support it but not all. "Netscape Navigator" seems to:
>
>http://developer.netscape.com/evangelism/docs/articles/xslt/
>
>The docs there do not seem to say how to actually include the XSLT file
>but I presume it is the same as with IE.
>
>Opera does not support client-side XSLT.
>
>Lynx does not support client-side XSLT.
>
>I would be surprised if hand-held computer browsers supported XSLT.
>
>> Are there disadvantages to applying the style sheet
>> client-side?
>
>Well, there is compatibility with minority browsers.
>
>There is compatibility with older versions of browsers.
>
>There is the risk of small differences between the XSLT handling in
>major browsers (just speculating...I haven't done client-side XSLT). As
>usual, write once test once per browser version.
>
>Server-side XSLT can use extensions to a particular XSLT engine to pull
>in (e.g.) Python code or SQL statements etc.
>
>If none of these are a concern, client-side XSLT might be the right
>thing for you.
			.
			.
			.
It's even more complicated than this.

Gecko and Opera actually support CSS quite well, and
*sometimes* that's what people want when they start
to talk about XSLT.

Also, IE supports scripted client-side XSLT processing.
This is ... well, my view on a lot of this stuff is that
it's solutions in search of problems.  The original
question was something like, "Wouldn't client-side be
simpler than server-side XSLT?"  'Depends.  The argument
for client-side:  Microsoft has already put all of XSLT
in IE, it's there, it works (in recent versions), and
you don't have to do anything.  The argument for server-
side:  do all your users rely exclusively on recent IE,
with preferences set for your convenience?  If not,
server-side is FAR easier to manage.

This almost ascends to a question of *Weltanschauung*:
is your client universe a homogeneous sea of modern
browsers, or is the point of your Web application that
you do *not* want to involve yourself in the logistics
of client deployment?

There's also a bandwidth argument in principle pertinent
to some style-sheet applications.  I know of no instance
where it has actually been consequential.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html