Re: [xsl] xtvd grouping problem (I think)

["Bob Portnell" <simply.bobp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Let me clarify a little. I already have my set of programs in a
variable... call it $hitSet. So that's cool. And the bit from the sort
on down I'd already worked out. Good and good.

I need to get away from any looping based on program IDs. That's my
problem: program IDs are more fine-grained than my search item terms.
So I need to expand up, collecting up all the <schedule>s which have
the program IDs from $hitSet (and so representing each search item
discovery individually)

In pseudocode, my vision is something like
for each member of schedule ( a long list)
   if this member's @program is found among the @ids in (hitSet list)
       push (this member into Keepers list)

But I have no idea if that's possible in XSLT. I have a hunch it is,
and I'm just overlooking a very simple XPath function for the
assignment...

Bob P
simply.bobp@xxxxxxxxx



On 9/8/06, Steve <subsume@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/8/06, Bob Portnell <simply.bobp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >     for each search item
> >         find the set of programs which have that item
> >         convert this to the set of schedule items which have those programs
> >         for each in the schedule set
> >             sort by time
> >             report the show information.
>
> <xsl:for-each $progSet/items[@item=@search]/@prog>
>      <xsl:variable name="prog" select="@prog" />
>       <xsl:for-each $scheduleSet[@prog = $prog]/@prog>
>         <xsl:sort select="@time" />
>         <xsl:value-of select="@showInfo"
>       </xsl:for-each>
>    </xsl:for-each>
>
>
> > Given a variable $progSet which has a bunch of <programs> in it, how
> > do I define a $schedSet which has only <schedule> items containing
> > @program ids from $progSet?
> >
> > I've gotten as far as
> > <xsl:variable name="schedSet" select="//schedule[@program . . {sound
> > of screeching brakes}? />
>
> Pretty sure I touched on this above. Let me know.
>
> > Please excuse where I've strayed from proper XSLT vocabulary; I hope
> > my intent is clear enough despite such lapses of inexperience.
>
> No problemo. Was very well conveyed. =).
>
> -S