Pushing multiple xml through a xsl file to generate a single htmlpage

[graham.reeds]

I am building a reports system. Several events can happen in the space
of an hour so over a long weekend there can be quite a lot of events
(hundreds). Therefore sending everything as a single xml file will
take a long time. Also sending one report at a time would take a long
time for the roundtrip.

What I was going to do was batch up a number of events (say 10) and
then make a request for the next 10. Simple tests show that the first
part of this works (I'm working off the w3schools cd catalog example
with added javascript to hide all but 1 item at a time) but I am
unsure about the second part - specifically the sending of data
through the XSL file and having it append to the original file. As
far as I can see it will overwrite the original html.

Is this possible or am I better off sending individual items through?

[graham.reeds]

That's going to take me some time to digest.

OT: I agree with you on the v5 spec. I dunno why they don't promote
correct xhtml and css better rather than creating a spec that no-one
needs. It seems to be diverging from what I remember of xhtml1.1 (or
was/is now 2.0?).

[Pavel Lepin]

graham.reeds <gr**********@gmail.comwrote in
<31**********************************@i12g2000prf. googlegroups.com>:

OT:

That's not altogether OT here, although ciwah might be
somewhat more appropriate for this discussion.

I agree with you on the v5 spec. I dunno why they
don't promote correct xhtml and css better rather than
creating a spec that no-one needs.

Because at least one of the major UA vendors feels XHTML
would represent a somewhat more level playing field, where
it would be harder for them to achieve the lock-in they're
enjoying now. Naturally, that would be detrimental to their
business strategy, and for some reason or other, other W3C
members chose to comply with their wishes in the end.

It seems to be diverging from what I remember of xhtml1.1
(or was/is now 2.0?).

1.1 really was a fluke. It lost all of XHTML 1.0's
crufty 'compatibility' with HTML 4.01, and didn't offer
much in return. Since it was rolled out even before there
was any sort of real support for XHTML 1.0, it never even
had a chance. XHTML2 WG was chartered about a year ago, but
in my opinion Microsoft successfully torpedoed that effort
with the rechartering of HTML WG. Mobile profiles of XHTML
remain our last hope, really, at least we have some sort of
a wedge in the consumer market there, but it still remains
to be seen how much good it is going to do in the long run.

--
<>There is no phenotype</>

[Andy Dingley]

On 1 Feb, 08:19, Pavel Lepin <[e-mail]:

Mobile profiles of XHTML remain our last hope,

Those are dead now too. They might have happened when mobile meant
"mobile phone", but these days a more likely user agent connecting
through a phone network is some sort of mini-Opera on a display of
400px upwards. These clients want the _real_ WWW, not a transcoded
XHTML MP dumbed version of it targeted at sub-200px displays.

[Pavel Lepin]

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote in
<b5**********************************@u10g2000prn. googlegroups.com>:

On 1 Feb, 08:19, Pavel Lepin <[e-mail]:

>Mobile profiles of XHTML remain our last hope,

Those are dead now too. They might have happened when
mobile meant "mobile phone", but these days a more likely
user agent connecting through a phone network is some sort
of mini-Opera on a display of 400px upwards.

My impression was that while XHTML MP support is largely
useless by now, some not-so-enlightened authors still
insist on using it to create new content.

If you're right, oh well, pardon me while I run around in
circles like a headless chicken.

--
<>There is no phenotype</>