not(*[not(self::A)][following-sibling::A][preceding-sibling::A])
returns true if and only if there is no non-A element that is both preceded and
followed by an A element, which I think is equivalent to your expression and
rather simpler.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
On 1 May 2017, at 14:00, Costello, Roger L. costello(_at_)mitre(_dot_)org
<xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Folks,
I want an XPath expression that implements this rule:
All <A> elements shall be contiguous within <Test>.
In this example all A's are contiguous, so the rule is satisfied:
<Test>
<B/>
<A/>
<A/>
<A/>
<B/>
</Test>
In this example there is an intervening B, so the rule is not satisfied:
<Test>
<B/>
<A/>
<A/>
<B/>
<A/>
<B/>
</Test>
Below is the XPath that I created. I have two questions about it:
(1) Is it correct? Do you see anything it would fail to catch?
(2) Is there a better (simpler, more efficient) XPath expression?
Here is the XPath (within a Schematron rule):
<sch:rule context="Test">
<sch:assert test="
every $i in A satisfies
(if ($i/preceding-sibling::A) then
$i/preceding-sibling::*[1][self::A] else true())
and
(if ($i/following-sibling::A) then
$i/following-sibling::*[1][self::A] else true())
">
All A's shall be contiguous within Test.
</sch:assert>
</sch:rule>
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--