Re: [xsl] java - standard implementation of the URIResolver

Subject: Re: [xsl] java - standard implementation of the URIResolver
From: "WebShark" <webshark@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 02:00:23 +0200
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:26 PM
Subject: [xsl] java - standard implementation of the URIResolver

> Hi,
> I want to report my findings with regard to standard implementations of
> the method setURIReolver works in the popular Open Source java xsl
> processors. From what I understand from past discussions is that the spec
> not clear on the issue. I was wondering if processor developers could get
> together and decide either one way to implement the setURIResolver or do
> the way Saxon does by doing both (hopefully explained below).
> According to most API's you can set the URIResolver on the
> TransformerFactory and on the Transformer. Generally, the resolver set on
> the TransformerFactory resolves xsl:includes and xsl:imports. If set on
> Tranformer it resolves document() function calls.
> - Saxon allows you to set the resolver on the TransformerFactory to
> both includes/imports and document().
> It also lets you set one for the factory and one for the transformer. When
> this is done the factory resolves include/import and the transformer
> resolves document(). This is the best way, IMHO.
> - jd.xslt only uses the TransformerFactory to be used for
> xsl:include/xsl:import and document() resolution.
> Strangely, the standard xalan and it's xsltc implementation do two
> things.
> - standard xalan requires you to use the TransformerFactory for
> and xsl:import and the Transformer for document()
> - xsltc xalan uses the TransformerFactory for both xsl:include/xsl:import
> and document() -- not the Transformer for document(), like the standard
> xalan.
> Any chance of standardizing on one way? :)
> Best,
> -Rob

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread