What is the basic problem that you are having with the format statements
that means you can't do it just using [sibling:]??
Is it that need to print out the value twice for each item?
You could probably generate a series of links using sibling:, but you
wouldn't be able to display the text that the link pertained to.
Is that the main problem? Are there any others?
I have added sibling(first):, sibling(last), sibling(1), sibling(2) etc
to the latest release, so if you knew how many items there would be,
then you could do it just using format statements.
If you don't know in advance, I guess you could do a series of if
if sibling(0), print sibling(0)
if sibling(1), print sibling(1) etc
Does this solve your problems?
If not, it would be good to get a clear picture of what the main problem
is, and we'll add it to our todo list :-)
jens wille wrote:
> hi axel!
> schild wrote:
>>thanks for the comment. You are right, the outhtml only works for
>>changed them to also work with mozilla. I think I already posted
>>this solution a while ago on the list ("Re: [greenstone-users]
>>Referencing & querying the search engine", 27.06.2005).
> sure, just forgot about that posting ;-) i will try it some time.
>>However Jens I must say I disagree with your comment that this is
>>only an "undesirable hack". Sure there are probably better
>>solutions from a computer scientist point of view but that is
>>what I can claim for my solution: It works fine for me (never
>>caused me any trouble at least), and leaves a lot of flexibility
>>for specific (personal) needs.
> well, i didn't mean to disrespect your effort, it was a great idea.
> it's just that it doesn't appeal too much to me: apart from the
> difficulties writing browser independent (let alone /working/
> on the user's side (at least at the moment).
> user's/visitor's browser (usually, this only results in not having
> these flashy image effects, but in this case it's a bit more spoiling).
> but you're right, it's flexible as hell :-)
>>I think that you could implement this feature in C++ and coping
>>for the requirements of all users (different search engines,
>>different index names, etc, some people would want to search for
>>a combination of metadata values, etc) but I think it won't come
>>for without a larger effort (and will be most likely not
> yeah, it might be _very_ difficult to implement - nonetheless, i
> consider it the better way.
> imho, adding functionality this way cannot be more than a temporary
> solution - it just belongs to the core of the application!
>>But if somebody feels up to adapting the C++ code I will be
>>grateful as well...
> greenstone-users mailing list