You may or may not hear from Scott or Charles -- contributors to this
list are often busy people, and can disappear for days at a time.
It's a volunteer effort after all. :-)
I understand this perfectly, thats why I'm asking the list and not them
directly :). I was somehow addressing them just because I thought their
particular thoughts might be of special interest to me, but if some of them
(or even both) is unable or just find it useless to respond (maybe, due to
possible stupidy of my question) - it's completely ok. And of course, I'll
appreciate any response even if it comes in a month :)
That being said, a wise approach is always Caveat Emptor. Don't
assume that we've actually run the code we're posting. I can't speak
for Scott or Charles but I post untested code fairly frequently. I'm
lucky it works as often as it does.
Accordingly, you might do best to assume that a helpful contributor
has made an innocent mistake, and focus instead on the XSLT issues
that concern or interest you. In other words, I think your
supposition that list contributors may have tried to jump forward,
deduce your problem and solve it, without testing their solutions, is
Similarly, I can corroborate that Mike's suggestion of
match="not(activity = preceding-sibling::Rec/activity)" is more
likely to be the actual solution to a real-world problem than the
more elaborate match pattern you posted. But that's in the general
case. Only you can say what you need in your own case.
Having read this, I have strong feeling (correct me if I'm wrong) that my
message was seen as if I was somehow blaming the list members for not
running the actual transformation, which is definetely NOT the meaning of my
post, by no mean! In opposite, I find it amusing that contributors to this
list can deduce the real problem and suggest the working solution without
actually writing and testing any single line of code!
All I wanted to know is just whether somebody got the result I obtained, and
my speculations about possible not running the transformation and in-mind
analysis were in this sense only. It's important since if my assumption is
wrong then my template processing software is giving incorrect results and
it's obviously odd and requires serious analysis. Actually, as I said, the
exact template is not of great interest to me :) (though the discussion was
interesting). I apologize to the members whom I was addressing, if I
unintentionally made an insult on them. I hope, now I made my point as clear
as it can be.
PS I'd like to personally thank you, Wendell, as your comments are of great
value to me as a newbie to this list and I appreciate them much!