This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSLT and Text Processing Languages
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: XSLT and Text Processing Languages
- From: Paul Terray <terray at 4dconcept dot fr>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:41:02 +0100
- References: <14774.47031.394979.263058@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
To add to this little conversation :
OmniMark advantages :
- Much faster
- Can be linked to SureSpeed, the application server manager for OmniMark,
that handle the load for App Server in a very neat way
- Less resource hogging
- Allow everything that would need an external language in XSL-T, including
server querying
- Can do much more than translation
XSL-T advantages :
- Much more powerful for tree querying (DOM oriented): you cannot ask for a
node that is not in your ancestors with OmniMark, you cannot parse twice
the same node... Just tocs are way simpler with XSL-T
- Very natural way of outputing XML and HTML (in OmniMark, you output the
string of the tag, where in XSLT, you are sure the XML you output is
well-formed)
- XML-native : the DTD you are using with OmniMark can be SGML-tainted,
there would be no reaction at all, whereas XSL-T is very strict with that
Conclusion :
- For XML->XML or XML->HTML conversion, which is more tree transformation,
prefer XSLT
- For any other format -> XML, Omnimark is mandatory
- For XML -> any other format, Omnimark is probably better
- For XML interpretation to trigger programs, OmniMark is clearly the best
--
Paul Terray - terray@4dconcept.fr
tel : 01 34 58 70 76
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list