[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
I'm not a master of ieft specs either, but 1738 appears to be quite agnostic on the question. file: is system specific,
so it just depends on what the tool implements.
Perhaps file: resolution should attempt to use the smb protocol, but it doesn't sound like an obvious
design decision, at least not when 1738 was written.
- Mitch
David.Pawson@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Re: [xsl] document() access. The combinations
Subject: Re: [xsl] document() access. The combinations From: Mitch Amiano <mitch.amiano@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 07:20:28 -0400 |
I'm not a master of ieft specs either, but 1738 appears to be quite agnostic on the question. file: is system specific,
so it just depends on what the tool implements.
Perhaps file: resolution should attempt to use the smb protocol, but it doesn't sound like an obvious
design decision, at least not when 1738 was written.
- Mitch
David.Pawson@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If I were a master at spec interpretation I'd do it.
I'm not. I'm seeking help. but good suggestion.
e.g. who knows how
file://\\church\other-path
relates to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt ?
UNC's are not mentioned.
More to come. regards DaveP
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] document() access. The co, David . Pawson | Thread | [xsl] document() access. The combin, Américo Albuquerque |
[xsl] document() access. The combin, Américo Albuquerque | Date | RE: Re: Re: [xsl] Transform XML, cknell |
Month |