Subject: RE: [xsl] why is it worked out? From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:44:38 +0100 |
> it took me some time before i got tired and made a mistake putting > XPath(is it how it is called?) inside a predicate of a XPath > like below: > <xsl:if test="not(following-sibling::item[not(@db-end) and > not(@db-start) or > following-sibling::item] > )"> > what i actually ment was > > <xsl:if test="not(following-sibling::item[not(@db-end) and > not(@db-start)] > or > following-sibling::item > )"> > surprisingly enough to me it worked allright. > could someone please explane what is going on inside of test=""? The first expression is true if there is no following sibling item that either has no @db-end or @db-start attribute, or that has a following sibling item. The second expression (the one you said you meant) is rather strange. It reduces to not(FS[condition] or FS) which is equivalent to not(FS) so it is true if there is no following-sibling item. Michael Kay Software AG home: Michael.H.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx work: Michael.Kay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] why is it worked out?, Ilyasov Jienbay | Thread | RE: [xsl] why is it worked out?, Jarno . Elovirta |
RE: [xsl] why is it worked out?, Jarno . Elovirta | Date | RE: [xsl] (text processing) lexical, Michael Kay |
Month |