> is found this article talking about why xsl is bad > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/05/xsl/xslconsidered_1.html > > any comments? I haven't personally looked into xsl, the syntax > always looked like RTF :-) through babelfish > > and it looks like doing client side work on the server ( ie > browser stuff ) i know from my old man who does java that > it's quicker to go xml-dom-xml than xsl > > what's peoples experience?
I think that if you're programming something from scratch, which will only be used on the server in one place, you're probably better off writing your own "transform" using CF's XML parser. However, if you think there's a chance that you might move the transformation somewhere else, XSL is definitely the way to go, since you can do that anywhere. I'd expect XSL transforms to be faster than having CF navigate the DOM, also, and as Rob mentioned, large documents loaded into memory are an issue with DOM parsing. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
