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[@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