Re: [xsl] XPointers to the start and the end of an element (not its content)?

[Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Tom" == bitte um hilfe <bitte.um.hilfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Tom> E.g. how could I set an XPointer exactly in front of the
    Tom> second <a> element (marked with * in the source code) or
    Tom> exactly behind an element like the 4th </a> (marked with **).

    Tom> Is this doable at all?

It depends on the processor. But I am not sure what you mean by
exactly behind or exactly in front of.

You don't set XPointers - you use XPointers to refer to a fragment of
a document in the URI you pass to the document() function.

    Tom> Because in my opinion XSL is made to
    Tom> navigate trough a given XML structure with the aim to access
    Tom> embedded content and thatbs the reason why it
    Tom> probably is not possible to access elements themselves (they
    Tom> are structure rather than contentb&).

No, you can access elements via any XPath expression.

    Tom> At the moment the marking is done as follows: ? is the
    Tom> paraphrase for * and the same holds for ?? which is the
    Tom> paraphrase for ** This is doable, because Content within an
    Tom> Element is accessible for sure - by using the text() as well
    Tom> as the position() functions navigating is easy.

    Tom> Does someone have a clue if it could work somehow?

It depends upon which XSLT 2.0 processor you are using. As far as I
know, there are none that support the XPointer scheme (which is not a
W3C recommendation - only the element and xmlns schemes made the
recommendation).

Gestalt has a gexslt:xpath2 scheme, so you could use that to select
the nodes you want.
I think the XPath expression you want is (assuming the first div you
show is the first child element of the document element):

/*/div[1]/*[position gt 2 and position lt 7]

    Tom> PS: using XSLT 2.0 - guess the processor doesn't matter for
    Tom> that question!?

It does matter. Which XPointer schemes (if any) are supported by an
XSLT processor is implementation-defined.

-- 
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire