</snip> > > A bit wild guessing, isn't it? ;) Kind of, yes :-)))
> > AFAIK there is something like URLHandlers which have to be > registered on the > XSLT processor - but I actually never worked with that API > directly, so I do not > really know. What I wonder about is that Saxon behaves > differently than Xalan. > But I'd put my shirt off that it is not because Xalan is also > from Apache :) > > > Seeing its implementation, I am curious about what it means > for the caching > > impl. I can not imagine that the validity of the cocoon:// > protocol in > > document() function is added to the stylesheet validity > (TraxTransformer > > validity), so I would never chose for this solution anyhow > (unless by some > > magic it is added, but I don't think changes in the > pipeline called by > > cocoon:// are picked up in the cached result, unless of > course you chose to > > have no caching at all) > > Exactly the caching has always been the reason to not > recommend the usage of > document(). It should only be used for REALLY static > documents, as it is not > included in any cache validity (AFAIK). And you end up with the really annoying "having to clear your cache whenever the include cocoon://foo" might change. Just take it with an aggregate or an include I would suggest... Ard > > Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
