IIRC the current XInclude transformer does not support caching. Geoff Howard
> -----Original Message----- > From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: XInclude Transformer vs CInlude Transformer > > > > From: Mattam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Ivelin Ivanov [Sun, 09 Jun 2002 11:22:07 -0500]: > > > > | > > | Two almost identical transformers are confusing me. > > | What is the difference between the two? > > | Should one be deprecated? > > | > > | I'd vote for the one which implements the W3C XInclude > spec closest. > > | Maybe it should take the best of the other one. > > | > > > > CInclude allows cocoon:/ protocol, and XInclude tends to be a strict > > implementation of the standard. Maybe keeping only XInclude while > allowing the > > cocoon:/ protocol (with a switch?) would be the better. > > That's not right; XInclude also works with cocoon: protocol, they both > use Cocoon's resolver. > > IIRC, the reason of CInclude existence is completely different: if you > remove CInclude, it will be more complicated to serve documents with > inclusions and with tags in xinclude namespace. Right now, this is not > an issue: create document with xinclude *and* cinclude tags, > process it > through cinclude, and xinclude will remain intact, no sweat. > > Vadim > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
