Does Saxon solve this particular issue? If so, how?
Thanks, tim.

> We have observed this behaviour with Xalan (1.2.x family) both in and
> outside of app servers. Xalan uses the "working directory", according to
> Java, as the base URI. Which is of course wrong.
> 
> Dunno about Xalan2. Possibly fixed. In any case I'm planning to switch over
> to Saxon.
> 
> Regards,
> Arved Sandstrom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Cramer
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:54 AM
> To: Orion-Interest
> Subject: RE: Why xsl:include seems to try to find files in /Orion folder
> and not web-app root?
> 
> 
> Check out the XSLT spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#include. According to
> the spec, in an <xsl:include> tag, a relative URI as the value for the href
> attribute should be interpreted as starting in the same directory as the
> including stylesheet.
> 
> Example:
>       assume that a stylesheet /www/xsl/A uses the tag: <xsl:include href="B">,
> then the XSLT engine should include the stylesheet /www/xsl/B.
> 
> If this isn't what you're seeing, then your processor has a bug.
> 
> This might help more than my suggestion before :-)
> Dan Cramer
> Chief Architect
> Dynamic Resolve, LLC
> Internet Solutions Consulting
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Duffey, Kevin
> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 5:47 PM
> > To: Orion-Interest
> > Subject: Why xsl:include seems to try to find files in /Orion folder and
> > not web-app root?
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > When I use the <xsl:include..> directive, it appears to look in
> > server root
> > dir, and not the web-app root its deployed in. I am not quite sure if this
> > is something to do with Orion, or if all servers operate in this
> > manner and
> > therefore its an error of the XSLT technology. Or..perhaps its an error of
> > the saxon library I am working with. Just wondering if anyone working with
> > Orion and XSL have seen this problem or not?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to