|
Subject: Re: [xsl] Keys with duplicates should be simple From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:22:39 +0000 |
No [2] means that a 2nd one exists which would be true if a 3rd one existed etc.
The full dataset picks up instances where there is more than one
duplicate so I can verify the above interpretation.
Having said that your offering although more verbose is superior
semantically as really the best way to write this is something like
(and I am pleading the fifth on the syntax here)
exists(key('person',@href)[2]) but then you look at that and you
realise or can argue (I think) that what I wrote is an abbreviated
form of that anyway.
I suppose a guru could tell whether they are semantically identical
and whether the one abbreviates the other.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Graydon <graydon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 04:38:49PM -0800, Dimitre Novatchev scripsit:
>> <xsl:key name="person" match="a" use="@href"/>
>> <xsl:template match="person">
>> <duplicate>
>> <xsl:copy-of select="a[key('person',@href)[2]]"/>
>> </duplicate>
>> </xsl:template>
>> </xsl:stylesheet>
>
> Can I note that the [2] would appear to suppose that there's only ever
> one duplicate?
>
> not(position() eq 1) is likely safer.
>
> -- Graydon
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] Keys with duplicates shou, Graydon | Thread | Re: [xsl] Keys with duplicates shou, Wendell Piez |
| [xsl] Re: [saxon] template match de, Ihe Onwuka | Date | [xsl] Context node versus current s, Costello, Roger L. |
| Month |