Re: following-sibling and xsl:sort

> Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set()
> extension function should have a solution without using it.

I tend to disagree with that statement.  I am in the middle of a
project now which is using xxx:node-set() quite regularly processing
xml fragments that have been transformed, grouped, sorted and in some
case summarized in order to drive other data validation and lookups.
I am having to ask questions like:  "Does this item exist with this
item? If so do they overlap, are they in correct combination with
these other items..." and so on..  However, my XSLT is probably just
ok, so maybe there is a better way.  I can give some examples of the
kind of data we are validating if you are interested.


On 4/28/05, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/28/05, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Is the obvious (and only) solution to use xxx:node-set against
> > transformed / sorted XML?
>
> The answer follows from the fact that XSLT is Turing-complete.
> Therefore, any problem, which has solution using the xxx:node-set()
> extension function should have a solution without using it.
>
> In the case of grouping and then sorting, one such pure XSLT 1.0
> solution can be found at:
>
>       http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/200311/msg00659.html
>
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev