Subject: Re: [xsl] catching the last node still satisfying a condition From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:00:26 +0100 |
> If we agree the final result is an ordered (meaning indexed access, as in an > array) set (meaning no duplicate) of nodes. Right ? No. The result of an XPath select is always unordered (hence set). All these sets are subsets of an ordered set of nodes, but individual selections do not have an order. So for example in ancestor::[2] 2 selects the second ancestor in reverse order but <xsl:variable name="a" select="ancestor::*"/> $a is just the unoordered set of nodes: it doesn'r "remember" that it was collected in any particular order. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] catching the last node st, Guillaume Rousse | Thread | RE: [xsl] catching the last node st, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] catching the last node st, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Xpath newbie question, Michael Kay |
Month |