Subject: Re: Can a single XPath statement duplicate the functionality of this verbose <xsl:choose> statement?
From: "Mark" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:18:22 -0700
|
It does. I have put off downloading the book because of a lack of time right
now, but I can see that I might be able to save time in the long run.
Thanks for the answers,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: G. Ken Holman
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:30 PM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Can a single XPath statement duplicate the functionality
of this verbose statement?
At 2011-10-23 18:21 -0700, Mark wrote:
One more small question: I am confused by brackets in XPath;
The brackets specify a predicate used to keep or toss the nodes
tested in the step from the next step of the location path.
what is the difference between
Location[name(@*)]
That is atypical. It is addressing the child element <Location> and
only keeping it if there is an attribute, because the name() function
returns a non-empty string. An empty string tests as false(), a
non-empty string tests as true(). One wouldn't write the above
because that particular predicate test is nonsensical in this
situation (but not syntactically in error).
Location/@*
That addresses the attributes of the child element <Location>.
Location[@*]
That addresses the child element <Location> but only keeps it if the
element has any attributes. If the element doesn't have attributes,
the XPath expression stops getting evaluated.
Chapter 3 section 2 of my XSLT book (free preview download on my web
site) describes the syntax of XPath expressions in gory detail.
I hope this helps.
. . . . . . . . Ken
--
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
|
Cart
