Sending XML instead of HTML will certainly improve your throughput, but it
still needs to be rendered to a readable format somewhere.
How exactly is XML vs. HTML improving throughput? It sounds like you are
more referencing the bloat of using tables for formatting vs. CSS. I would
have to guess that CSS would allow for a smaller document than XML - but I
suppose that depends how bloated the XML tags are.
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Pete Hall
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 5:25 PM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Faster HTML Output.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sending XML instead of HTML will certainly improve your throughput, but it
still needs to be rendered to a readable format somewhere. I have a captive
IE shop (good and bad in that) where I can rely on msxml3 to give me
consistent rendering, so I us client side rendering. It offloads a lot of
processing from the server side, and is certainly friendlier to network
bandwidth. Still can take a while to render a document with xslt though, and
that's entirely dependent on client horsepower. BTW, if you go this route,
use attributes instead of nested elements where possible.
It makes for a much smaller datastream, and do NOT worry about indenting
nested elements. That's a big-time throughput hog with large documents.
Pete Hall
pbhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://pbhall.us
midrange.com
