Subject: RE: [xsl] document() access. The combinations From: Américo Albuquerque <aalbuquerque@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:42:57 +0100 |
Hi > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > David.Pawson@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:17 AM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [xsl] document() access. The combinations > > (...) > > 6 differences! (I assume your 'disabled' ones failed unrecoverable). Yes, they failed with all processors put kept msxsl from processing the others so they had to be disabled to see the remaining results > > file:/uriIncl.xml > file:///uriIncl.xml > file://h:/uriIncl.xml I assume you had access to such a drive (over the > network)? I've mapped a network drive to c:, so using h: was the same as using c: (...) > Mmm. My h: drive is mapped to \\church etc. church is just the machine name, in my case I used lanowar instead. This is how windows connect to network shares, it use \\{machine name}\{share name} > Am I right in thinking you don't have such an equivalent drive, > or were they genuine failures? I had h: drive mapped to c: so this failures can be considered genuine. AAlbuquerque XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] document() access. The co, David . Pawson | Thread | [xsl] merging two templates with st, "Braumüller, Hans" |
RE: [xsl] Good old namespace proble, Passin, Tom | Date | RE: [xsl] Transform XML, Américo Albuquerque |
Month |