Subject: RE: id() questions From: David Schach <davidsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:07:09 -0800 |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Ferguson [SMTP:ferg@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 6:37 PM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: id() questions > > > 1) Isn't the syntax 'verse/id()' more consistent with the rest of the > spec than 'id(verse)'? If id() acted like XT's 'next-element', then > 'chapter/id(verse)' would match all verses pointed to by chapters. If > I understand correctly, in the current spec, the following are > equivalent: > chapter/verse/id(.) > chapter/id(verse) > id(chapter/verse) > [David] - Correct. These are all equivalent. > 2) When 'id(@idref)' is used as a match pattern, e.g. in xsl:template, > the XSL processor must scan the entire source tree to find any attribute > '@idref' with value containing the id of the current node. True? Or am > I missing something? > [David] - Technically, yes. Because it is extemely expensive and not particularly useful, it is not implemented as a match pattern in IE5's XSL. > Scott Ferguson > Caucho Technology > > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
id() questions, Scott Ferguson | Thread | RE: id() questions, Scott Ferguson |
id() questions, Scott Ferguson | Date | categorised product lists: is there, James Tauber |
Month |