Re: following-sibling and xsl:sort
On 4/30/05, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Karl, Your original question was: "Is the obvious (and only) solution to use xxx:node-set against transformed / sorted XML?" You've got the answer to this: "No" The fact that a "pure" XSLT 1.0 solution exists doesn't mean it is more elegant and nowhere did I recommend using such pure solution over the corresponding xxx:node-set() one. We must have *proofs*, not "believes" whether XSLT 1.0 is Turing-complete or whether a Turing-complete language can express any XSLT transformation using the xxx:node-set() extension. Just saying that "XSLT 1.0 cannot solve taskX" is not a proof, it is a belief. In fact, there were such believes in the past that were proven wrong :o) Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format