Re: [xsl] XPath for expressing contiguous elements?

["Alan Painter alan.painter@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If it's possible to use some XSLT2.0 to set up a variable before then
checking it via XPATH, could use the group-adjacent feature of
for-each-group to set up a variable $adjacentAs

<xsl:variable name="adjacentAs" as="element(adjacentAs)*>
    <xsl:for-each-group select="/Test/*" group=adjacent="name(.)">
        <xsl:if test="name(.) eq 'A'">
            <adjacentAs>
                <xsl:copy-of select="current-group()" />
            </adjacentAs>
        </xsl:if>
    </xsl:for-each-group>
</xsl:variable>

The xpath test would then be:

count($adjacentAs) gt 1

best regards

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx <
xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Here is one without any negation:
>
> /*/A[preceding-sibling::A][following-sibling::A]
>            [preceding-sibling::*[1][self::A]]
>            [following-sibling::*[1][self::A]]
> and true()
>
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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@xxxxxxxxx <
> xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev
> ---------------------------------------
> Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
> ---------------------------------------
> To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
> -------------------------------------
> Never fight an inanimate object
> -------------------------------------
> To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the
> biggest mistake of all
> ------------------------------------
> Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
> -------------------------------------
> You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
> you're doing is work or play
> -------------------------------------
> To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
> -------------------------------------
> Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
> -------------------------------------
> Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they
> write all patents, too? :)
> -------------------------------------
> Sanity is madness put to good use.
> -------------------------------------
> I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.