Re: Tricky inclusion match

Wendell:
Of the following:

color[not(.=preceding-sibling::color)][.=$colors]

Is it possible to explain how using "preceding-sibling" in this
context correctly itterates all color nodes?  Wouldn't you need
following-sibling too?

By the way:  works beautifuly, like magic!  Thanks ; )



On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:16:33 -0700, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wendell:  I'm very excited... will give this a whirl tomorrow.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:03:38 +0000, Aron Bock <aronbock@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Wendell, if this works (heheh) it's very cool!  It inspires me to learn
> > about XSL's "built-in" set operations capabilities.
> >
> > --A
> >
> > >From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Reply-To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re:  Tricky inclusion match
> > >Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:26:06 -0500
> > >
> > >Karl,
> > >
> > >It turned out that keys weren't actually necessary: as posed (as I
> > >understand it) the colors problem could be solved with a simple (if not
> > >obvious) test. But using a key does make it slightly more efficient:
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/