RE: [xsl] document() access. The combinations

[David.Pawson@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> From: Américo Albuquerque
> > 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

> > 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.

OK so its a good comparison.
 I'll download libxml and try that.

Many thanks. I'll leave it to the implementors to determine which is
correct.

Regards DaveP

- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list