J. S. Rawat wrote:
Can anybody let me know about the mistake I am doing!!
Yes, you copied my untested code from last week verbatim. :)
So the mistaken impression that preceding::* includes ancestors was poor
recollection on my part.
But I'm glad you got it working.
@pg != preceding::*[1]/@pg
(I justified != rather than not(=) here because both sides of the
comparison are node-sets of at most one node.)
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--