Hi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> David.Pawson@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:17 AM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:  document() access. The combinations
> 
> 
(...)
> 
> 6 differences! (I assume your 'disabled' ones failed unrecoverable).
Yes, they failed with all processors put kept msxsl from processing the
others so they had to be disabled to see the remaining results

> 
> file:/uriIncl.xml
> file:///uriIncl.xml
> file://h:/uriIncl.xml  I assume you had access to such a drive (over the
> network)?

I've mapped a network drive to c:, so using h: was the same as using c:


(...)

> Mmm. My h: drive is mapped to \\church etc. 

church is just the machine name, in my case I used lanowar instead. This is
how windows connect to network shares, it use \\{machine name}\{share name}


> Am I right in thinking you don't have such an equivalent drive,
> or were they genuine failures?

I had h: drive mapped to c: so this failures can be considered genuine.


  AAlbuquerque



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list