Hello Justin,
1) Your "bad" solution will be used very often in a performance-
challenged, or runtime-speed-is-critically-important, system.
No, that won't be the case, the problem hasn't much relevance since I try
to get a good solution just for interest. But when I wrote the
stylesheets, I noticed a huge difference in runtime. Because of that I
decided to ask some pro's.
2) Your "bad" solution should exhibit an order of magnitude
better performance than the "good" XSL solution, and, that,
would be a surprise to me if that were to be the case.
That was fact until Michael gave me the hint to do it in a recursive way.
<xsl:if test="not( preceding-sibling::*[1][self::row])">
Thank you! I searched the inet for some "best practice" patterns and how
to write performant XSL, but I must admit that I did not spent too much
time in that. Further I hope I'm learning to code better XSL by reading
this XSL-List.
Greetings from Germany
Christoph Naber
If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you
have received this e-mail by mistake and delete it. We thank you for your
support.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--