Re: Sibling text() Content Match [was: Re: expression value not a node set on content match]

> > If I'm right, using text() would have alleviated some of the
> > redundancy/lack of specificity that David pointed out in my solution, yes?
> 
> nope, if you change . to text() in your solution it won't work at all

Right, I was just pointing out that doing string comparisons on '.' with
your relatively deep tree is probably making '.' pick up more text than
you intend for it to. Being more specific about which text nodes you're
looking for is safer. You would use text() but not necessarily without
some other modifications to your expression.

   - Mike
___________________________________________________________
Mike J. Brown, software engineer, Webb Interactive Services
XML/XSL stuff: http://www.skew.org/    http://www.webb.net/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list