Markus,
Thanks for the correction.
The good news for Betty is that if she still wants to do this
test from the context of a <c> node -- instead of redesigning
the model to work from the context of a <b> node --
she can, using parent::.
Markus wrote:
No, it looks like it should not work.
As i wrote before,
For some reason I didn't get your earlier message.
However I got several notices from our "Spam Assassin" software
saying that unspecified spam had arrived from xsl-list. I wonder if
anyone else is getting xsl-list messages labeled as spam, and if so, why?
I checked SpamCop to see whether comet.de was blacklisted as a spam relayer,
and it was not.
Just curious.
the correct test expression would be:
<xsl:if
test="parent::b[(_at_)name='cde']/preceding-sibling::b[1]/@name='abc'">
parent::b is not the same as ../b:
../b goes to the parent (=b) and from there to some child
element b which does not exist.
Good point. I'm prone to forget this. (And it looks like
I'm not the only one!)
Lars
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list