Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 24918 invoked by uid 500); 15 Apr 2003 09:38:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 24804 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2003 09:38:44 -0000 Received: from main.gmane.org (80.91.224.249) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Apr 2003 09:38:44 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 195MtJ-0005QX-00 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:38:13 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 195MtG-0005QB-00 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:38:10 +0200 From: Stefano Mazzocchi Subject: Re: [FYI] www.ormaz.it usecase Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:39:45 +0200 Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <3E9B421F.3080708@apache.org> <1050392474.17899.76.camel@yum.ot> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030412 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <1050392474.17899.76.camel@yum.ot> Sender: news X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N on 4/15/03 9:41 AM Bruno Dumon wrote: > On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 01:19, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > >> 6) header/footer are not cincluded by they are 'wrapped' by a >>'style.xslt' stylesheet at the end of every pipeline. This concept of >>XSLT style wrapping is pretty cool and *much* more powerful than any >>server-side-include paradigm. > > > So if I understand correctly, you're using an XSL that basically > consists of some static HTML with somewhere a . More or less yes. > I'm rather opposed to such constructs, because those XSL's are usually > quite expensive to execute, while doing mostly nothing. True. > If the pages can > be cached, this is not really a problem, but on a dynamic site this can > cause big performance degradations. Again, true. Luckily enough, I didn't have any performance constraints with this site since it will never get much load. > The same wrapping behaviour can also be achieved by inversing the way > you do the cinclude: instead of cincluding the header and footer, let > the template page that contains the header and footer cinclude the main > content. Let me show you a use case: 1) template 1 ricambi ... 2) resulting page ricambi .... header stuff ...
... path ...
... body ... .... footer stuff ...
there is no way cinclude can achieve the above. the use of the 'cascading' property of CSS asks for a better mode of styling. I suggest that wrapping is much better suited for this than fragment inclusion. -- Stefano.