> The following seems (to me) a little bit simpler:
> 
>    [count(//@dem:count| .) != count(//@dem:count)]

simpler to write, but if // causes Gigabytes of input document to have to
be searched, it might be a bit slower. However the idea is sound, and
../@ would work just as well, and be faster.

David


_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list