Is there a reason not just use 'match="item[not(item)]"' instead?
Not as written, no, I suggested using a more generic catch all
and relying on priority on the assumption that in the real case
the predicates in the matches are more complicated, in which
case stating explictly the predicate that matches the otherwise unmatched
cases can be tiresome and error prone. Of course it may be that
the predicates in the example were the ones from the real problem in
which case I agree using not() is clearer in simple cases.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list