Converting your XML to HTML at publishing time will almost certainly give
you a performance advantage over doing it at page delivery time, provided
that your content is sufficiently stable to make this possible. It's also
simpler and likely to improve availability.

Michael Kay 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: IceT [mailto:icetbr@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 19 August 2004 05:53
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:  Speed: xsl with xml vs. html and the world
> 
> My lastest messages in this list has remembered me of this 
> question. I 
> belive it may have already be discussed here, but could 
> someone please 
> explain to me a little bit of the state of the art of the creation of 
> webpages?
> 
> I mean, specially regarding xml and xsl. Which is better 
> (speedwise at 
> least): to publish an xml file to be rendered with an xsl or to 
> preprocess it and generate an html file to be used? I believe html is 
> faster, although not dynamic. But there is many ways to add 
> dynamic code 
> to html. So wich is the way to go? Is the answer related to 
> the size of 
> the page?
> 
> Also, if I were to preprocess my xml + xsl files, I could use as well 
> xslt 2.0, because I wouldn't need to worry about incompabilities.
> 
> thanks