At 03:02 PM 7/18/2000 +0530, AKHIL NAGPAL/EIDER(Technical) wrote:
>Is the technique of converting XML to HTML by XSL is fine or there is any
>other effecient and fast method ?
XML->XSLT->HTML is indeed "fine," especially if you can do the
transformation on the server.
(Relying on client-side -- i.e. in-the-browser -- transformation, for the
moment, means that users must use the current version of IE5. Work on
Mozilla/Netscape's XSLT engine, called Transformiix, is done or nearly so,
but that engine hasn't yet been integrated into the browser. That last
step, according to the Transformiix author, is "nearly completed.")
If server-side isn't an option for one reason or another, and you don't
want to cut off the non-IE5 users, you can also do static transformations
to HTML. This typically involves running an XSLT processor in
batch/command-line mode, feeding it the name of the XML document, the name
of the stylesheet, and the name of the output HTML document. Some XSLT
processors let you use wildcards in the filenames, so you can transform an
entire directory of XML documents to their HTML equivalents in one step.
The downside to the static-transformation approach is that it *is* static.
Completely unsuitable in the case, say, where the XML "document" doesn't
exist as a file, but must be assembled on the fly using data queried from
Oracle or another database.
Anyway, short answer is yes: converting via XSL is fine. It's so
straightforward for such a large percentage of cases that unless your
documents are very large, or the transformation requires thousands of
nested recursions, it's hard to imagine considering another option.
(All IMO, of course!)
John E. Simpson | "I replaced the headlights in my car
http://www.flixml.org | with strobe lights, so it looks like
[log in to unmask] | I'm the only one moving." (Steven Wright)