use Perl

• Way too much work (Score:1)

  by Aristotle (5147)

  You’re defining two identity copies, one on the root element and one for everything else; why? Next, you write a template for //* which is equivalent to matching * (but I haven’t slept and it’s 6AM, so I might be making a mistake). And finally, you say making the D nodes sort together with all the others would be a lot of work, when actually it’s less work than you’re already doing. Overall:

  <xsl:stylesheet
      xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
   
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by runrig (3385)

    Huh, the order of templates is not supposed to matter, but if I switch the order of the templates above, then it doesn't work anymore. If you change the "*" template to "//*", then it works again. Which probably explains why I had "//*" in my first template. Code:

    #!/usr/bin/perl
    
    use strict;
    use warnings;
    
    use XML::LibXML;
    use XML::LibXSLT;
    
    my $parser = XML::LibXML->new();
    my $xslt = XML::LibXSLT->new();
    
    my $source = $parser->parse_string(<<'EOT');
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <F
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by runrig (3385)

      Aha...from the docs [w3.org]:

      It is an error if this leaves more than one match. An XSLT processor may signal the error; if it does not signal the error, it must recover by choosing, from amongst the matches that are left, the one that occurs last in the stylesheet.
      • Re: (Score:1)

        by runrig (3385)

        So it would probably be better to put an explicit priority on the "*" template.
        • Re:Way too much work (Score:1)

          by Aristotle (5147) <pagaltzis@gmx.de> on 2008.02.11 16:47 (#61019) Homepage Journal

          Or use something more restrictive than node() in the identity transform to avoid matching elements, eliminating the conflict in the first place. The types a node can have are element, text, comment and processing instruction. Matching any node except elements therefore translates to XPath as “text()|comment()|processing-instruction()”. Another, possibly better way to write that (certainly a shorter one) is “node()[not(self::*)]”. (The predicate “[]” constrains the node() to match only when * would not() match the current node of that step, self::.)

          Messing with priorities directly is often bad maintainability juju. If you have a lot of possible matches, conflicts resolution will be complex and will occasionally produce surprising interactions that can be hair-tearingly hard to fix. Reducing the number of candidate templates is almost always preferable over coercing the matcher into resolving to the right one.

          Reply to This

          Parent