cocoon-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kirk Woerner" <>
Subject RE: stupid question about xsl:include/import
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:06:42 GMT

>> In fact "/foo.xml" is a perfect URI and also a perfect URL.
>There is a W3C
>> recommendation out, that says so, too. And anything that you put into an
>> attribute called href better be a URI. The only way to refer to filespace
>> with URIs is using the file:// locator - because http:// is sort of the
>> default locator. It is assumed, when no other locator is present.
>> Ulrich
>That was my understanding too.
>But since I have always been using those prefixes and I am not so close to
>the standards, I was not so sure.

Actually I think y'all are missing the point.  A URI is either fully
qualified or relative.  The URI "/common.xsl" is relative.  There's no
indication of whether it's http, file or what.  Which drive would this be on
on an Windows system?  So the question is "relative to what"?  I don't know
the answer, but I would think when the code just slaps "file:" in front it's
wrong.  I would think it would be relative to how the XSL was referred to in
the XML file (or wherever it was pulled from).  I think also there's
something similar to the HTML "DocumentBase" tag which it should follow.
This might be for only for XML, but since XSL IS XML it should work no?

View raw message