Subject: Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Function with Empty String From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:26:10 +0000 |
Colin Paul Adams wrote: > Whatever, I agree with your conclusion that you cannot rely on > document ('') working. >
Though I don't fully understand what the phrase "no base uri" may mean here in this discussion, I think it's in place here to state that document('') never works once you offset the base uri by using xml:base in the xsl:stylesheet element, or in any direct ancestor to the element containing the document('') instruction.
In a particular project of us, all stylesheets from a stylesheet library are located in a certain directory structure, deeper nested than the input/output sources location. To get easy access to the paths of input/output and for all stylesheets to "see" the same directory structure, all those stylesheets have an xml:base instruction of "../..". This has the (uncanny) side benefit of effectively disabling the call to document('').
Isn't it because the stylesheet doesn't actually live at the location that xml:base is referring to, therefore no XML file is returned? So it's not that uncanny, just that there's nothing to return.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, Abel Braaksma | Thread | Re: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, Abel Braaksma |
Re: [xsl] statistice using xsl, Andrew Welch | Date | RE: [xsl] Behavior of document() Fu, Michael Kay |
Month |