On Tue, 18 May 1999, Scott_Boag/CAM/Lotus wrote:

> I think it's a bit unfair to be judging XSL performance at this time.  Both
> XT and LotusXSL are documented to be not optimized yet.  There are a LOT of
> things to be done for optimization, and I know both James and myself (and
> other processors like XSL:P) have these optimizations in our plans.  I
> think you'll be pleased at how fast XSL can become.  But right now
> stability and draft supporting features come first.
> 
> Remember how early in the game it is -- XSL is not yet a recommended
> standard, and the last draft brought radical change to the expression
> syntax.
> 
> -scott
> 

Can you share with us what optimization is expected in the future release
of xsl processor? Some members of the list mention tenfold improvement. I
think 3x(of December draft's xt - I haven't timed the new xt.) improvement
is hardly possible as I thinks xt is at least partially-optimized.

I've also made an xsl processor and tried to optimize it a lot. It
still does not go near xt.

I've also found that the JVM ,suiting for (some) xsl processors, is
microsoft jview. The new hotspot is very disappointing.

Nantapon.  
 


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list