Subject: Re: [xsl] Beware the count method with Muenchian grouping (was: Testing by counting or positional predicate) From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:38:07 +0000 |
Daniel Bowen wrote: ... > > > So that's why you need the same filter as used in the "match" on the key to > be there if you do it the count way: > <xsl:variable > name="primary-textures" > select="//Texture > [0=count(preceding-sibling::Texture[1])] > [1=count(.|key('key-texture', concat(@texture, ':', @u, ':', > @v))[1])]" > /> > > Without the filter used in the "match" on the key, the count method will > give you the nodes that are part of a key (the first one of each unique > combination), plus all the other nodes matched by the XPath that aren't part > of the key. > Yes. Interesting. I didn't think through the implications of having a predicate on the match attribute of your xsl:key. At the risk of stating the obvious, have you tried <xsl:key name="all-texture" match="Texture" use="concat(@texture, ':', @u, ':', @v)" /> <xsl:variable name="primary-textures" select="//Texture[count(. | (key('all-texture', concat(@texture, ':', @u, ':', @v))[1]) = 1]" /> - I'd really be interested in the result. Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Beware the count method w, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Beware the count method w, Francis Norton |
Re: [xsl] Bibliographic recomendati, G. Ken Holman | Date | Re: [xsl] Beware the count method w, Francis Norton |
Month |