RE: arbitrary sorting (Part IV)

Subject: RE: arbitrary sorting (Part IV)
From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:21:56 +0100
> but you could presumably use count(preceding-sibling::*)+1

Of course. Silly me.
Mike K


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread