On May 24, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Wendell Piez wrote:
I think this has be a test on the preceding:: axis -- though maybe
someone can think of a way to do it that wouldn't be so expensive,
potentially.
That is, an ibid would be when @linkend =
preceding::biblioref[1]/@linkend. In the simple case.
I'm not sure if I understand the logic you want here, however. Is the
second doe99 an ibid even though it's in a footnote?
Yes; at least in my system ;-)
I just didn't want you to assume the same parent node. In a footnote
style, the p/citation gets translated into a footnote representation
anyway.
Why is the third doe99 not an ibid, or if it is, is it by virtue of
"directly following" the first doe99 or the second?
Because ibid is only for single-reference citations. The third has
two. Idem. covers the case of multi-references that are the same.
Bruce
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--