RE: XPath: better way to check for text nodes that are

[ Lars Huttar]

> Tom Passim wrote:
> > You could use
> > 
> > test='not(.//*[local-name() != "vernac" and local-name() !=
> > "gloss"]/text()[1]
> > 		| text())'
> 
> Hmm... I don't think this would give the correct result in all cases,
> e.g. if we have
>   ./llcd:vernac/llcd:stretch/text()
> this should be legal, but it would show up as illegal by your test.
> 

Oh, yes, I read your criterion as "children" but you really wrote
"descendants".  If llcd:vernac and llcd:gloss could only be immediate
children of the current node, then you could just change it to this -

count(*[local-name() != "vernac" 
               and local-name() !="gloss"]//text()[1]
 	| text())

Otherwise this kind of approach gets more complicated and one of the
other suggestions already posted would be better.

As to efficiency, that is likely to be very processor-dependent since it
may depend on optimizations.  You would need to test to be sure.

Cheers,

Tom P

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