Subject: Re: [xsl] Tricky inclusion match From: Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:11:23 -0700 |
Wendell: Of the following: color[not(.=preceding-sibling::color)][.=$colors] Is it possible to explain how using "preceding-sibling" in this context correctly itterates all color nodes? Wouldn't you need following-sibling too? By the way: works beautifuly, like magic! Thanks ; ) On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:16:33 -0700, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Wendell: I'm very excited... will give this a whirl tomorrow. > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:03:38 +0000, Aron Bock <aronbock@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Wendell, if this works (heheh) it's very cool! It inspires me to learn > > about XSL's "built-in" set operations capabilities. > > > > --A > > > > >From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >Reply-To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >Subject: Re: [xsl] Tricky inclusion match > > >Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:26:06 -0500 > > > > > >Karl, > > > > > >It turned out that keys weren't actually necessary: as posed (as I > > >understand it) the colors problem could be solved with a simple (if not > > >obvious) test. But using a key does make it slightly more efficient: > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! > > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Tricky inclusion match, Karl Stubsjoen | Thread | Re: [xsl] Tricky inclusion match, Wendell Piez |
Re: [xsl] Testing 2 XML documents f, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Cross reference question, David Carlisle |
Month |