[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XPath: better way to check for text nodes that are
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. > > or > > test='count(.//*[local-name() != "vernac" and local-name() != > "gloss"]/text()[1] > | text()) > 0' > > These might be more efficient because you do not bother to examine > elements that will not cause a false result, and of the ones that are > examined, you only have to look at one text node. That's the kind of solution I was hoping for... > Whatever expression you use, remember to use > > <xsl:strip-space elements='*'/> > > Otherwise you will be counting whitespace-only nodes between elements, > which you most likely do not intend. Thanks! That may save me some grief. Dmitre Novatchev wrote: > Or quite more simple: > > count(.//text()) != count(.//*[self::llcd:vernac or > self::llcd:gloss]//text()) Thanks... I had not thought to use *[self::llcd:vernac or self::llcd:gloss] in the middle. Do you have any thoughts about the efficiency of a count() solution vs. a count()-less solution like the following one? (using "or" instead of "|" as you suggest) > > My current test is > > test=".//text()[not(ancestor::llcd:vernac | ancestor::llcd:gloss)]" > > In the general case this is not correct, because it will > permit "illegal" > text-nodes, which have an llcd:vernac or llcd:gloss ancestor, > which is not a > descendent of the current node (but its ancestor). In my first email I noted that > (By the way, if it helps, the llcd:vernac or llcd:gloss will be descendants > of . too, not ancestors.) What I meant is that this constraint can be assumed to be true already. So there are no llcd:vernac or llcd:gloss ancestors of the current node. > Apart from this observation, a non-clever XSLT processor will > build the > union in the predicate and this is quite expensive operation. > I think it > would be more efficient to re-write the expression as: > > .//text()[not(ancestor::llcd:vernac or ancestor::llcd:gloss)] Thanks, that's helpful. Sometimes I forget that | is really union and not just "or"! Lars XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
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
|