Re: XML and XSLT Praise

Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>    Peter> ... the convenience of having a full-blown XSLT
>    Peter> interpreter inside my application comes at a big cost.
>
> Note that this is XSLT 2.0 (not 1.0 as implemented in .NET). This is a
> much bigger (and more powerful, and more friendly) language. This is
> where the cost comes in. In particular, Unicode normalization is
> responsible for much of the increase in code size.

Ok. Another big factor with the .NET XSLT classes is that they are 
precompiled (or "NGen'ed", in .NET-speak) into a DLL. (The DLL is in .NET's 
Global Assembly Cache or "GAC", so you could almost say it's part of the 
operating system.) This means that using it adds almost nothing to the 
application's compilation time, and it adds zero megabytes to the 
application's size.

- Peter