[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: "Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt" <STAMMW@d...>
  • To: David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@g...>
  • Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:22:46 +0100

You are right on "/..", but "(4=5)=/.."  does work as "isXPath1".
DataPower XSLT 1.0 processor agrees with Saxon 6.5.5 XSLT 1.0 processor.
So it seems my understanding that   not(/...)   is equivalent to   (4=5)=/..
is wrong ...
What is the difference?
Or maybe both, Saxon 6.5.5 and DataPower processor have a bug?

$ java -jar ~/Desktop/saxon9-0-0-8/saxon9.jar dummy.xml xpv.xsl; echo
true
false

$ java -jar ~/Desktop/saxon6-5-5/saxon.jar dummy.xml xpv.xsl; echo
true
true

$ xj xpv.xsl dummy.xml
true
true
$
$ cat xpv.xsl
<xsl:stylesheet version="2.0"
  xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
>
  <xsl:output omit-xml-declaration="yes" />
   
  <xsl:template match="/">
    <xsl:value-of select="not(/..)"/><xsl:text>&#10;</xsl:text>
    <xsl:value-of select="(4=5)=/.."/><xsl:text>&#10;</xsl:text>
  </xsl:template>
 
</xsl:stylesheet>
$


Mit besten Gruessen / Best wishes,


Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt
Compiler Level 3 support & Fixpack team lead
IBM DataPower Gateways (⬚ᵈᵃᵗᵃ / ⣏⠆⡮⡆⢹⠁⡮⡆⡯⠂⢎⠆⡧⡇⣟⡃⡿⡃)
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/HermannSW/
https://twitter.com/HermannSW/ https://stamm-wilbrandt.de/GraphvizFiddle/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

Inactive hide details for David Carlisle ---19.12.2015 15:32:07---> not(/..) > This expression is true for XPath 2.0 and false David Carlisle ---19.12.2015 15:32:07---> not(/..) > This expression is true for XPath 2.0 and false for XPath 1.0.

From: David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle@g...>
To: Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
Date: 19.12.2015 15:32
Subject: Re: isXPath1 / isXPath2 -- not(/..)





> not(/..)

> This expression is true for XPath 2.0 and false for XPath 1.0.

isn't it true also for xpath 1?
I'd have thought so: an empty node set counts as false, saxon6 seems to agree.

David






[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member