Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >xsl-list Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 problem >Thread Next - Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 problem Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 problemTo: Date: 9/3/2008 7:38:00 PM No it shouldn't contradict what I said. First you need to select the A nodes that have B elements with @a containing 'foo'. (Everyone provided methods that can do this.) Second, you then copy or recreate the A nodes but only copy/reproduce the B sub-nodes that have @a containing 'foo'. (I think others will agree with this, but neglected to see this as a requirement in your first message.) Darcy On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:19 PM, mark bordelon <markcbordelon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I did understand you mean the first node, not the first attribute. > > Comprehension check: Does this at all contradict what Darcy wrote? I don't think it does...but just making sure. > > --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [xsl] xslt 1.0 vs xslt 2.0 problem > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 11:17 AM > > I wrote: > >> //A[contains((B/@a[1]), 'foo')] > > but meant: > > //A[contains((B/@a)[1], 'foo')] > > ...but hopefully you got the idea! > > > > > -- > Andrew Welch > http://andrewjwelch.com > Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/ | ||||||
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | Mobile | Full Site | |||
|
