Michael,
I re-checked and both e-mails suggesting this redirect are yours.
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg_raw.php3?msg_id=9920530
http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200312/msg00276.html
I had a suspicion that the syntax was for the OS. But the error I
receive is gives the SAXON options for the commandline.
Yes. If the OS doesn't recognize 2>error.txt then it's going to assume that
it means something to the application (Saxon), so it will hand it over to
Saxon, which won't know what to do with it.
It just struck me as odd that I found no option that was able to
direct the errors to a file. I thought I must be doing something
wrong or have misunderstood the options (where to place the syntax).
I'm surprised too. Every other OS that I know provides this option.
James Clark's SP has an option that outputs an error file (-f), why
can't SAXON have one? Why depend on the OS, when you can write in an
option?
It doesn't seem worth adding something to Saxon if it's needed only on
Win95.
My second thought was that, if I have to deal with the OS, maybe I
could capture the output in the window to an error.txt file. Thus, I
ask concerning an alternative syntax for the command line.
The primary interface to Saxon is the Java API. The command line aims to
provide a user interface that gives access to most of the functionality. It
will never do everything that you can do via the API. If there's a feature
in the product that you can't get from the command line, you can always
implement your own command line (or GUI) interface.
I don't understand the relevancy of your statements concerning
documentation.
Fortunately another user knew about this restriction in Win95. I don't know
where he got the information. I was not able to give you the information
myself because I've never found any decent documentation of the Windows/DOS
command line syntax.
Michael Kay