Stan R. wrote:
> One more question if I may. From what I've gathered, usually you include 
> the XSLT template right into your main xml doc you're working with, a 
> la:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="test.xsl"?>

If you want to try and have it rendered in the browser, yes.
Or if you simply want to record for others the location of a stylesheet.

> My question is, is it possible to have the main xml doc in one file 
> (say, main.xml), but have a seperate xml file for the transformations 
> (include both a XSLT and the main.xml document.)

In theory, yes, but not practically.

> This would seem to make more sense to me, as you would have one file 
> containing your xml data, and thne have seperate xml files, each 
> including the main.xml, but different XSLT files.

But then you'd have three separate copies of your document to maintain.
That way madness lies.

Why not just put three xml-stylesheet Processing Instructions into one
copy of main.xml? Browsers don't honour that, at the moment, AFAIK,
despite having been asked to support variant stylesheets for the best
part of a decade.

> Say, you have one template for html output, and another for plain text, 
> and another for some other format.
> 
> From everything I've found online thus far, it seem including xml files 
> in other xml files isn't a very clear topic, but it seems to me it 
> should be an essential part if you want to keep things seperate and 
> organized, unless I'm really missing something here.

No-one has ever asked to do it. The alternative is to have your three
stylesheets, but run them on a dummy 1-line XML file, and use the
document('main.xml') function to reference your main document, so that
it gets included for processing. In XLST2, you don't even need the
dummy file.

///Peter
-- 
XML FAQ: http://xml.silmaril.ie/