Re: [basex-talk] BaseX, xinclude and xpointer

2021-02-18 Thread pascaljoubaud
Thanks Christian, > Here’s a minimized test case on command line. Do you still get the same error > for that one? Well this one works. And I've tried the same command with my files basex "doc('EV.xml')" and the inclusion works too. Nevertheless, I have strange warnings : [warning]

[basex-talk] Nasty trap with RESTXQ content negotiation

2021-02-18 Thread Marco Lettere
Dear all, First of all, I hope everything is fine and all of you are staying healthy! When I read again the docs about Content Negotiation in RestXQ I noticed the sentence: Functions can be restricted to specific Media Types. The default type is|*/*|. So I wrote the two RestXQ signaures

Re: [basex-talk] BaseX, xinclude and xpointer

2021-02-18 Thread Christian Grün
Hi Pascal, > My problem is that the referenced document IS NOT included at all if i remove > the xpointer attribute (I have the same error message). As it works on your > side, I guess my baseX installation is not good. I think I'll have a look at > that. Here’s a minimized test case on

Re: [basex-talk] BaseX, xinclude and xpointer

2021-02-18 Thread Christian Grün
> > Nevertheless, I have strange warnings : > Which of our distributions are you using? With the ZIP distribution, all libraries should be correctly added to the classpath. But I guess that won't solve your xinclude issue. Maybe you can find out more by comparing my minimized example with your

Re: [basex-talk] BaseX, xinclude and xpointer

2021-02-18 Thread pascaljoubaud
Some good news, I managed to get the include working when adding the files (either the minimized ones or my own files) using a command line or the basexGUI. Unfortunately, i still have the error message when using the web interface (which is the only one I was using initially) and cannot

Re: [basex-talk] Nasty trap with RESTXQ content negotiation

2021-02-18 Thread Christian Grün
Hi Marco, > If I specify an explicit %rest:consumes("*/*") in the annotations of > fallback(), specific() correctly intercepts the request. That was misleading: It shouldn’t make a difference if the generic annotation is specified or omitted. This has been fixed. > Unfortunately at that point