- From: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@datapower.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:37:51 -0500
- To: <reagle@w3.org>, "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "merlin" <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
> from the datapower XSLTMark tests [1]. I'm not sure how much it tells us > other than there's a large difference in performance between the > implementations. Exactly, that is probably the most important conclusion. Also, some of the published XSLTMark results out there are starting to get a little out of date with current XSLT engine versions, but you can always download it and run tests yourself. On the topic of nodes vs. subtrees and XPath directly, XPath itself is not the problem. It *is* possible to make those operations extremely efficient (that's part of what DataPower does). I really doubt that having a different selection approach with a more obscure specification will help either interoperability or efficiency in the long run -- it's good to keep reusing XPath and XSLT whenever possible, since at least there are folks working on buidling wirespeed engines for those specifications. Who's got XPointer optimization experience? ;-) \\ Eugene Kuznetsov \\ eugene@datapower.com \\ DataPower Technology, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2002 15:32:39 UTC