On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:28:53PM -0400, Simetrical wrote:
On 8/18/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
You're suggesting to ship XML to the browser and let XSSSL do the translation actually *in* the browser?
Actually, I wasn't. Interesting idea, but I don't think there's any point, since a wikiXML -> HTML parser probably wouldn't be a noticeable bottleneck and so we may as well maintain support for non-XSL-supporting clients (does your Blackberry support XSL? :) ).
It does not.
:-)
I hadn't actually thought of using XSL definitions at all, but in fact, that may be the obvious choice. I'll have to look at that some more . . . I never paid much attention to it before now.
Yeah; I gather you can do it server side as well...
There would of course be all sorts of weirdness in XML -> WT, so it might not be as fast as XML -> HTML, but the WMF gets a *hell* of a lot more cache misses on page views than on page edits, I would bet a substantial sum of money.
Oh, I'm sure. Except on the top 5% current events-y pages.
Those too. Those get tons of edits, but even more views.
Yes, but those views *hit* the cache.
Cheers, -- jra