Subject: RE: [xsl] Ridiculous XPath expression, can I reduce it? From: Nick Vincent <Nick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:19:29 +0100 |
Sebastian, Thanks for your help, the problem with that is that this expression came from some Java code which goes on to do some advanced fiddling with the nodes, so I can't use a second level test. Ta, Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Rahtz > [mailto:sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 03 April 2001 12:59 > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [xsl] Ridiculous XPath expression, can I reduce it? > > > Nick Vincent writes: > > I found this XPath expression lurking in some code, and > I'm thinking this > > *may well* not be the most efficient way of performing > this task, which > > basically finds all the elements that exist below any > given <input.form> tag > > but not below an <input.link> tag. > > > > Here is the horror: > > > > .//input.hidden[count(ancestor::input.form[not(@done)])=1 and > > not(@form.prefix) and not(ancestor::input.link)] | > > ... > > using "starts-with(name(.),'input.')" might reduce it somewhat > > personally, I'd let all the elements get processed, but add a > > <xsl:if test="not(ancester::input.link)"> > ... > </xsl:if> > > condition in the template > > > Sebastian Rahtz > > > 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 -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Ridiculous XPath expressi, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Ridiculous XPath expressi, Oliver Becker |
Re: [xsl] Ridiculous XPath expressi, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Ridiculous XPath expressi, Oliver Becker |
Month |