Subject: Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 problem From: "Darcy Parker" <darcyparker@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:37:44 -0400 |
No it shouldn't contradict what I said. First you need to select the A nodes that have B elements with @a containing 'foo'. (Everyone provided methods that can do this.) Second, you then copy or recreate the A nodes but only copy/reproduce the B sub-nodes that have @a containing 'foo'. (I think others will agree with this, but neglected to see this as a requirement in your first message.) Darcy On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:19 PM, mark bordelon <markcbordelon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I did understand you mean the first node, not the first attribute. > > Comprehension check: Does this at all contradict what Darcy wrote? I don't think it does...but just making sure. > > --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 problem > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 11:17 AM > > I wrote: > >> //A[contains((B/@a[1]), 'foo')] > > but meant: > > //A[contains((B/@a)[1], 'foo')] > > ...but hopefully you got the idea! > > > > > -- > Andrew Welch > http://andrewjwelch.com > Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 prob, mark bordelon | Thread | Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 prob, mark bordelon |
Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 prob, mark bordelon | Date | Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 prob, mark bordelon |
Month |