Yeah, not to knit-pic too much, but if you want views and commands in the same xml file you've got a fragment.
---- part1.xml ---- <views> <view> .... </></> <commands> <command> ... </></> Anyway, the xsl option is a little heavy, I agree. But hey, it is an option. In my experience the entity inclusion procedure leads to xml fragments. For clarity I would recommend renaming the entity inclusion files to something other than xml as they are not valid xml documents (in some cases). Yurii, I hope one of these options will work for you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Schnitzer, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Scott Hernandez [mailto:ScottHernandez@;hotmail.com] > > The unfortunate side affect of doing this entity inclusion is that the > partX.xml files are xml fragments and not well-formed documents. XLink > provides a better alternative but is implementation bound. Not all xml > processors/parsers support the XLink syntax. Well, aside from missing the <?xml version="1.0"?> directive, the entity inclusion fragments can be well-formed documents. Part1.xml could be this: <commands> <command name="blah"> ... </command> </commands> ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf [INVALID FOOTER]
