RE: stupid question about xsl:include/import -Reply

[John Morrison <jo...@experian.com>]

Sorry Donald,  I said that xinclude worked for both files and URL absolute
and relative, not that xsl:include did.

>>> Donald Ball <ba...@webslingerZ.com> 10/July/2000 08:03pm >>>
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Paulo Gaspar wrote:

> I know nothing but... to me it seems that:
>   1. "file:" would always have to be related to the server's local file
> system;
>   2. "http:" is the thing that would give you a web related link. In this
> case
>      a web related relative link (oops!). Should be something like:
>         "http:/common.xsl"

that's not a valid URL. to be fair, this is sort of a gray area, since the
page exists in two contexts (as you allude to above) - filespace and
urispace. one would expect, however, that relative urls in
xsl:include/import would be relative to the page in urispace, not
filespace.

- donald


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: cocoon-users-help@xml.apache.org

RE: stupid question about xsl:include/import -Reply

[Donald Ball <ba...@webslingerZ.com>]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, John Morrison wrote:

> Sorry Donald,  I said that xinclude worked for both files and URL absolute
> and relative, not that xsl:include did.

I know that, I wrote the first durned bit of code. I was asking about the
other durned bit of code because it came up in some work I was doing and I
seemed to remember Ulrich pushing for it a while back - and he's a
persistent guy. :)

- donald