Subject: Re: [xsl] Catch ALL | Failed template rule From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:12:57 +1100 |
I know that the OP meant something completely different, but probably what seems as an appropriate answer to the question expressed in the title of this thread is: the builtin rules. It is a good practice to have them explicitly in one's code (with the least priority possible) and to put breakpoints on them (in a good XSLT IDE with a debugger), whenever one gets unexpected output that no other template is supposed to produce. I find this meaning of "catch all" more natural and intuitive. Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:03:06 -0700, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd like a catch ALL template rule, actually a catch NOT template > rule. In an effort to check for the existence of a select, I have > setup a match template rule that simply returns "1" for a match. So I > have: > > <xsl:template match="record" mode="recordexists"> > <xsl:text>1</xsl:text> > </xsl:template> > > The failed select would need to return a "0". So I need a match that > simply returns 0. > > So something like: > > <xsl:template match="not(record)" mode="recordexists"> > <xsl:text>0</xsl:text> > </xsl:template> > > (which is not a legal match statement, but that is what I need). I'm > sure there is a way, and I'm sure it is obvious! Just not coming to > me. > > Thanks, > Karl
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Catch ALL | Failed templa, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Catch ALL | Failed templa, Karl Stubsjoen |
[xsl] "...how a few lines of XQuery, M. David Peterson | Date | RE: [xsl] More newbie questions, Jarno.Elovirta |
Month |