yikes!
> If you are doing something for
> "two important clients" I would recommend using client side
> transformations.

should read
> If you are doing something for
> "two important clients" I would recommend using server side
> transformations.

my bad.
Rob


On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 08:51, Rob Rohan wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 23:19, jim wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > Sorry if this question seems basic, but I have two important clients who
> > need to support Netscape site visitors. I've been plugging away at this for
> > hours reading up on client-side XSL Transformations versus server-side XSL
> > Transformations. One article provided me with a JavaScript that it says
> > works in IE 6+ and NS 6+/Mozilla 1.2+ at
> > http://www.ebargoon.ca/sell/ebhtml.asp but it didn't work for me on
> > Netscape.  I even upgraded to Netscape 7.1 just to triple-check  but no such
> > luck. I've been reading up on "JavaScript/XSLT Bindings" at
> > http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/xslt-js/ and did a
> > hack-and-paste job of using the bits of JavaScript they provide, but no luck
> > on Netscape. My servers don't support ASP so what can I do?  There was a
> > somewhat related thread posted in 1999 at
> > http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199910/msg00626.html with two
> > opposing viewpoints, and I'm hoping that in 2003, there's a copy-and-paste
> > solution for me either in JavaScript, or even PHP.  Again, sorry if you
> > think this post is off topic but it's the foundation of getting XSL
> > Transformed to XHTML and I could really use some help here.
> > 
> > Thanks kindly!
> > 
> > Jim in Vancouver
> I am not really sure what your question is - I assume you are asking if
> it is better to do client side transformation vs server side.
> 
> Here is my opinion (this and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee). I
> think client side transformations are novel, but not that useful.
> Browsers were designed to view html, not do transformations. While xslt
> is being added to browsers it seems like it is still too proprietary
> right now to use it in a business sense. A bit like dhtml a couple years
> ago - some stuff works across all some doesn't.
> 
> Let me state that I have never used client side transformations - I am
> only stating what I have seen posted to the list. "It works in MS not in
> NS...it works on mozilla but not IE" etc. If you are doing something for
> "two important clients" I would recommend using client side
> transformations. You have more control over you xslt and xml parsers,
> and you only have to worry about cross broswer css, html, dhtml and js
> instead of cross browser css, html, dhtml, js, AND xslt.
> 
> > 1. Client Side XSL:
> >    Pros: JavaScript doesn't rely on type of server
> >    Cons: Doesn't work in Netscape
> xslt doesn't rely on the type of server. If written using standards.
> 
> > 
> > 2. ASP Server Side XSL:
> >    Pros: Works in latest IE and Netscape
> >    Cons: APS Servers Only
> 
> Well, the code you posted only works on an ASP server but xslt is not specific 
> to ASP. In fact, Coccon (see http://cocoon.apache.org/2.0/) is an xslt server. It
> uses xslt instead of vb as it scripting. I posted some items 
> http://treebeard.sourceforge.net/cfx_treebeard.php that allow xslt to work on 
> cold fusion, and JSP (actually coldfusion can do xslt by default but it is limited,
> and the JSP stuff you can write yourself I just did it for convenience)
> 
> There is my $0.02 (which is worth less then the euro right now :)) 
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob
-- 
Rob Rohan <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


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