Just some points of clarification:
1. Am I correct is saying, what you are talking about is of more use for
those using XSLT 2.0?
2. As far as sorting is concerned, this saves having a second sort, but
aside from the performance benefit, there is not much you gain?
Basically, I am trying to understand how useful this is to those of us
stuck with XSLT 1.x.
On second thought, it looks like XPath1.0 doesn't have a rich set of date
functions when compared to XPath2.0.
I haven't tested the use of full date format CCYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS in XSLT1.0 and
XPath1.0 , it might be more trouble than it's worth if you
are using XSLT 1.0/XPath 1.0 since there are not many date/time functions in
XPath1.0.
So, you might as well use the original format suggested YYYY-MM-DD
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--