D'oh! I guess I was thinking of something like
count(ancestor::*|ancestor-or-self::*/preceding-sibling::*)
which might or might not be cheaper.
Just think of me as the guy in back asking stupid questions....
Cheers,
W
At 04:39 PM 1/20/2003, you wrote:
> Just to be crystal clear -- why are you recommending the preceding::
axis
> here and not preceding-sibling? Won't the latter work as well and be
less
> expensive?
The latter won't work because there may be more than one node having
the same number of ancestors and the same number of (preceding and/or
following) siblings.
======================================================================
Wendell Piez
mailto:wapiez(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list