Subject: Re: [xsl] more elegant way of doing this? (very simple) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:53:03 +0100 |
unless you really need to always use a node test AContribution rather than name()='AContribution' It's namespace aware and likely more efficient. Are you using xsl 1 or 2? xpath 1: sum(Records/Record/*[self::AContribution|self::BContribution|self::CContribution][number()=number()]) xpath2 you can do the same, or a bit more simply: sum(Records/Record/(AContribution|BContribution|CContribution)[number()=number()]) David
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] more elegant way of doing thi, Steve | Thread | Re: [xsl] more elegant way of doing, Steve |
[xsl] more elegant way of doing thi, Steve | Date | Re: [xsl] more elegant way of doing, G. Ken Holman |
Month |