"Ryan Heise" <rheise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20030518190113.D12272@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:35:18AM +0200, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>
> >          <xsl:value-of select="position() + count(/*/record[time &lt;
> > current()/time])"/>
>
> This looks nifty. If you just use the count() idea, keys are not
> required:
>
> <xsl:for-each select="record">
>  <xsl:sort data-type="number" select="time"/>
>  <xsl:apply-templates select=".">
>   <xsl:with-param name="place" select="1 + count(/*/record[time &lt;
current()/time])"/>
>  </xsl:apply-templates>
> </xsl:for-each>
>
> I also just figured out another approach that just uses keys and not
> count:
>
> <xsl:for-each select="record">
>  <xsl:if test="not(preceding-sibling::record/time = time)">
>   <xsl:apply-templates select="key('records-by-time', time)">
>    <xsl:with-param name="place" select="position()"/>
>   </xsl:apply-templates>
>  </xsl:if>
> </xsl:for-each>

This presupposes that "record" elements are already sorted by "time" in the
source xml document. Also the "place" parameter will not select what you
want.

>
> I don't know which way is best, though. I guess whichever way runs the
> fastest :-)

Usually using keys is much faster, assuming that nodes are referenced more
than once.


=====
Cheers,

Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL






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