Subject: Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort|
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:13:00 +1000
On 4/30/05, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set() > > extension function should have a solution without using it. > > I tend to disagree with that statement. I am in the middle of a > project now which is using xxx:node-set() quite regularly processing > xml fragments that have been transformed, grouped, sorted and in some > case summarized in order to drive other data validation and lookups. > I am having to ask questions like: "Does this item exist with this > item? If so do they overlap, are they in correct combination with > these other items..." and so on.. However, my XSLT is probably just > ok, so maybe there is a better way. I can give some examples of the > kind of data we are validating if you are interested. Karl, Your original question was: "Is the obvious (and only) solution to use xxx:node-set against transformed / sorted XML?" You've got the answer to this: "No" The fact that a "pure" XSLT 1.0 solution exists doesn't mean it is more elegant and nowhere did I recommend using such pure solution over the corresponding xxx:node-set() one. We must have *proofs*, not "believes" whether XSLT 1.0 is Turing-complete or whether a Turing-complete language can express any XSLT transformation using the xxx:node-set() extension. Just saying that "XSLT 1.0 cannot solve taskX" is not a proof, it is a belief. In fact, there were such believes in the past that were proven wrong :o) Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev.