Subject: RE: [xsl] XPath: better way to check for text nodes that aren't descendents of x or y nodes? From: "Passin, Tom" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:11:48 -0400 |
[ Lars Huttar] > Tom Passim wrote: > > You could use > > > > test='not(.//*[local-name() != "vernac" and local-name() != > > "gloss"]/text()[1] > > | text())' > > Hmm... I don't think this would give the correct result in all cases, > e.g. if we have > ./llcd:vernac/llcd:stretch/text() > this should be legal, but it would show up as illegal by your test. > Oh, yes, I read your criterion as "children" but you really wrote "descendants". If llcd:vernac and llcd:gloss could only be immediate children of the current node, then you could just change it to this - count(*[local-name() != "vernac" and local-name() !="gloss"]//text()[1] | text()) Otherwise this kind of approach gets more complicated and one of the other suggestions already posted would be better. As to efficiency, that is likely to be very processor-dependent since it may depend on optimizations. You would need to test to be sure. Cheers, Tom P XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XPath: better way to chec, Lars Huttar | Thread | [xsl] re-ordering an instance to ma, S Woodside |
Re: [xsl] re-ordering an instance t, Wendell Piez | Date | RE: [xsl] XPath: following sibling/, Lars Huttar |
Month |