Subject: Re: Re: dynamic XPath?
From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:09:39 +0100
|
"Passin, Tom" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5D3C2276FD64424297729EB733ED1F7601D1BD10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [Dimitre Novatchev]
> >
> > It will also "work" for more than one node (in case $tagPath
> > evaluates to a
> > nodeset of two or more nodes) and most probably is not what
> > the author of
> > the original message wanted.
> >
>
> I think I may have misunderstood here, and perhaps you misunderstood me
> as well... I understood the original question to ask for matching a
> __string__ containing a path expression, like "/a/b/c" (that is the kind
> of example O thought that Yue Ma showed). For my own post, I put the
> path string into a variable, thinking that it would probably eventually
> be sent in via a parameter.
>
> Re-reading your comment, I notice that you might have thought that I
> was selecting a node set into the variable, instead of a string, but
> that is not the case.
No, I also understand that the variable contains a string.
The problem of the expression (1):
/a/b/c
being generated for the node uniquly matched by (2):
/a/b[2]/c[3]
is that the former matches more than one node.
Whoever wants to identify a single node will not use (1) , but an expression
equivalent to (2).
This is why the chances of
"/a/b/c"
to be equal to the (string) expression identifying uniquely a node -- these
chances are close to zero.
I think that the "standard" answer is to use a xx:evaluate() extension
function.
It is also good to ask why such dynamic evaluation is necessary in the first
place.
=====
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
- RE: Re: dynamic XPath?
- Passin, Tom - Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:13:10 -0500 (EST)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Passin, Tom - Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:24:58 -0500 (EST)
- Dimitre Novatchev - Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:52:30 -0500 (EST) <=
- Yue Ma - Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:02:16 -0500 (EST)
|
|