Subject: Re: Sibling text() Content Match [was: Re: expression value not a node set on content match] From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 00:00:13 +0100 (BST) |
> If I'm right, using text() would have alleviated some of the > redundancy/lack of specificity that David pointed out in my solution, yes? nope, if you change . to text() in your solution it won't work at all as then you'll only be testing for character data of the record element not any of its children or grandchildren but looking at your example record doesn't have any character data (except white space nodes between data-field elements) Using = with contains isn't really redundant it's just weird. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Sibling text() Content Match [w, John Robert Gardner | Thread | Re: Sibling text() Content Match [w, Mike Brown |
Re: Sibling text() Content Match [w, John Robert Gardner | Date | Re: XML schema generator, John Robert Gardner |
Month |