On 4/12/06, Wendell Piez <wapiez(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 07:59 AM 4/12/2006, Andrew wrote:
If I were using 2.0 I would use a tunnelled parameter that was created
at the <para> matching template and then read in the <a> matching
template, but the OP didnt day whether they could use 2.0 or not....
What would the advantage of this be over the old-fashioned way?
Would we save a few microseconds?
Isn't the direct approach easier to maintain?
I always try and avoid ancestor and descendant - whenever I use them
my conscience tells me I'm being lazy, and makes me use a different
approach...
In this example there are many <a>'s to one <docBase>, so traversing
ancestor each time to retrieve the same value seems like a waste - if
there are 3 <a>'s, that means 3 trips up the same ancestor axis to get
the same value (I guess it probably gets optimized, but why rely on
that?) much better to store the value in a tunnelled parameter.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--