This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: XSLT vs Omnimark
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: RE: XSLT vs Omnimark
- From: James Robertson <jamesr at steptwo dot com dot au>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:20:59 +1100
- References: <D79909C367EAD3118D3E00508B9B0EF5042D66@NYC3MSG01>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
At 05:41 7/03/2000, Didier PH Martin wrote:
>Didier replies:
>Exactly. If you can implement an XSLT engine that is very fast, can handle a
>lot of transaction per second on the server side, which is compliant to the
>latest recommendations and which also allows the usage of JavaScript
>(EcmaScript) function to produce a) text result, b) node list. You clearly
>have a winner - and me as your first custommer.
Yes, but how do you get around the fundamental
requirement for a lot of RAM?
I don't see how we can ever expect to parse a 150meg
document using XSLT ...
But for all the small, everyday documents, I absolutely
agree with you.
J
-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list