> 1) it hides away the aggregation instruction into an XSLT stylesheet, > which might (or might not) be obvious to debug for somebody who isn't > the original author.
I would prefer to keep details hidden away from the main program outline, if they only affect one or a few components. When something goes wrong with those components, you look at those components, and the details are visible there. I guess the implication then would be to use document() for things that were truly local to your stylesheet. > 2) theoretically, the non-document() methods of aggregation can be > optimized not to create a full tree/table model of the document to be > imported, which isn't the case using the document() function: > a DOM-like > in-memory representation will be created for both the imported and > importing document. Using the include transformers, this > might or might > not be the case, i.e. the importing & imported document are > SAX-streamed > and no tree is built up (except when doing XPointer stuff with the > XIncludeTransformer). Especialy for busy sites with large > (aggregated) > pages, this can make a huge difference. This sounds like a good argument for the use of non-document() methods of aggregation in certain situations. In other situations though, e.g. where the documents are small (as they are in my case), your web site's not busy, (possibly also where XPointer is being used?), or where you have more developer-expertise in XSL than in Cocoon sitemaps, document() can be just as appropriate or more so. I think Peter's email that started this thread was not saying that only document() should be used, but rather asking, why exclude document()? Lars --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
