RE: [xsl] returning nodes (not a string) using variable-choose.

["Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you need a variable that contains a node-set in 1.0, where the
computation involves a conditional, the best approach is generally

<xsl:variable name="ns" select="XXX[condition] | YYY[not(condition)]"/>

which selects XXX if condition is true, or YYY if condition is false. It
involves evaluating the condition twice, but you can do that in advance and
put the result in a boolean variable, so it becomes:

<xsl:variable name="condition" select="$type='Other'"/>
<xsl:variable name="ns" select="XXX[$condition] | YYY[not($condition)]"/>

Remember that xsl:value-of always flattens its input to a string (actually a
text node, but it amounts to the same thing).

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve [mailto:subsume@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 23 June 2006 20:06
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [xsl] returning nodes (not a string) using variable-choose.
> 
> The below somewhat elaborate lines assign a value to 
> $typeInfo, however they don't return results as a nodelist, 
> just a big string.
> ------
> 
> <xsl:variable name="typeInfo">
> 	<xsl:choose>
> 		<xsl:when test="$type='Other'">
> 			<xsl:value-of select="$desc" />
> 		</xsl:when>
> 		<xsl:otherwise>
> 			<xsl:variable name="table">
> 				<xsl:choose>
> 					<xsl:when 
> test="$type='Organizational Contact'">
> 						
> <xsl:text>CA_Orgs</xsl:text>
> 					</xsl:when>
> 					<xsl:when 
> test="$type='Meeting or Training'">
> 						
> <xsl:text>CA_Meetings</xsl:text>
> 					</xsl:when>
> 					<xsl:when test="$type='Travel'">
> 						
> <xsl:text>CA_Travel</xsl:text>
> 					</xsl:when>
> 				</xsl:choose>
> 			</xsl:variable>
> 			<xsl:value-of
> select="document(concat(concat(concat('http://server.org/getXM
> L.asp?key=id&amp;val=',$desc),'&amp;table='),$table))"
> />
> 		</xsl:otherwise>
> 	</xsl:choose>
> </xsl:variable>
> <xsl:value-of select="$typeInfo" />
> -----------------
> 
> Anyway to do this with XSLT 1.0 or am I pushing it?
> 
> --Steve