David,
I am not sure which xpath books you have been reading. The
XPATH I use in XSLT would have the use
Contains($param,'value'). In fact at the moment I am writing a
stylesheet to generate an intermediate format based on pasing in a set
of context values and this is what I have chosen to translate the
expression into.
Personally I am not a great fan of the OO approach but the it is
fairly compact.
Why do we not adopt $param rather than %param%?
Martin Roberts
xml designer,
BT Exact
e-mail:
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785 clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:]
Sent: 06 June 2003 01:39
To: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R
Cc:
Subject: re: [cam] Token notation
Martin,
I'm not in love with it either - but supposedly this is pukka XPath
style accessing.
If you can convince me of something that is more natural
and also reflects XPath (maybe XPath 2.0?) - I think that
we should consider it.
The idea behind the syntax as is - was that standard code written to
parse XPath would be purposed to handle this.
However - if this is not a valid assumption - lets re-visit this!
It would also be nice to have a more object centric approach
item.equal = 'testvalue'
Thoughts?
Thanks, DW.
===================================================
Message text written by INTERNET:
>I hate the notation
token='%param%'and contains(value,'testvalue')
What would be wrong with
equal(%param%,'testvalue')
I am going to change my examples to this as I feel I can process them
more easily.
Martin<
