Subject: RE: [xsl] Implementing a (fairly) complex business rule From: "Bradley, Peter" <pbradley@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:38:06 +0100 |
Thanks a lot, David. That's clear (and a copy of your email has gone straight to our knowledge base). Cheers Peter -----Original Message----- From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 30 September 2008 15:30 To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] Implementing a (fairly) complex business rule > I know that this is pushing your goodwill a bit far, but would you mind > explaining when I do need text() and when I don't. You almost never need it. At times when you need to ask, then you don't need it. That is you almost never need it to pass to any further string handling as it's almost always better to pass the element node instead. The only time you do need it is if you explictly want to test for an element being there but empty as opposed to not being there. not(POSTCODE) is true if there is no POSTCODE but false if there is <POSTCODE/> not(POSTCODE/text()) is true if there is no text in the POSTCODE, although uusually I'd check not(POSTCODE/node()) (the difference showing up on things like <POSTCODE><!-- --></POSTCODE> which has a comment node but no text. David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Implementing a (fairly) c, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] Implementing a (fairly) c, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Implementing a (fairly) c, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Implementing a (fairly) c, Wendell Piez |
Month |