Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:38:06 +0000 |
Hi Dimitre, > I guess a similarity with '/' will lead to confusion only -- the > ***difference*** is bigger as '/' produces a node-set and not (any) > sequence. You could be right. Personally, I find it rather intuitive, precisely because it's similar to '/', but it might just be me. > Perhaps one would want to write something like this: > > $departments/(lower-case(.)) Well, yes, I did :), until Mike persuaded me it wasn't a good idea because: $departments/name/lower-case(.) would on occasion give surprisingly different results from: $departments/lower-case(name) It seemed a natural extension now that function calls, and even more complex expressions, are allowed as steps within path expressions as long as they return a node set. The path: $departments / key('students', student/@id) / if (@registered = false()) then name else () works, after all. (Just demonstrating the use of if in a general step - the same thing could be done more elegantly with a predicate instead.) Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | [xsl] RE: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, Dimitre Novatchev |
RE: [xsl] counting question, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, Michael Kay |
Month |